Another Show, Surprise Surprise

I really love the show Humans.

This isn't an obsession thing. This isn't a "I will think about this every day and get too invested in the characters and rant about plot twists until I get sick of it" thing. This is a, "This is actually a really intelligent and compelling story with really good acting and awesome visuals and all in all is pretty great television" kinda thing.

It baffles me that anyone could watch it without seeing what I see in it.

And yet, people ask me why I love it so much.

And, as demonstrated by my sorely unappreciative mother, I guess not everyone gets it? She doesn't seem to see anything besides a generic, slow-moving sci-fi thing. So I'm going to come here and lay out all the reasons why I think everyone should watch this and love this and appreciate this and think it's as great as I think it is. And, most importantly, I'm going to attempt to do this without spoiling anything.

A) Alternate present

This is a device that is very easily taken for granted, but I think it's very smart. Because the risk you run by setting something in the near future is having people taken out of the story by breaking the suspension of disbelief, making it, y'know... a generic sci-fi show with quickly decaying realism.

By setting this show in an "alternate present" rather than the near future, it allows them to, firstly, not have to work on a "futuristic" aesthetic or develop fictional futuristic technology, aside from the robots (or Synths, as they're called), which helps on the suspension of disbelief front. And because the realism doesn't decay so rapidly, it's much easier to take its serious moments seriously. The emotional tone isn't jeopardized by its fundamentally sci-fi origins.

B) Backstory

LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO LEO

Whew. Sorry about that. The character Leo has a particularly, hm, notable backstory.

But, yeah, backstory is a big thing on this show. The one with the most question marks hovering around him is Leo, but everyone has something going on. Laura's hiding something, and that's making her husband suspicious. Dr. Millican is really weirdly attached to his Synth, but clearly knows what it is. We don't know much about Karen at all, either. And Niska's pretty grim from the moment we meet her, what's up with that? Anita's pretty shady for a machine, as well, isn't she?

A lot of the show is about teasing people's backstories out into the open, but it does so in a, I don't know, a tasteful way. It knows how to withhold enough information to make people want more, without withholding so much that nothing the characters do make any sense. Basically, backstory isn't key to understanding everything - except, arguably, for Leo, I suppose, but Leo's the exception to many things - but it does add a meaty layer to everything, and that's nice to be able to dig into.

Basically, the characters are all very planned straight from the beginning, and so it isn't a matter of piecing together half-baked clues. The writers know exactly what they're giving you and how much they're giving you, and so it's like just watching a present unwrap in front of you. It's very skillful, and it adds so much to the show.

C) Perspectives

So, as suggested fairly blatantly by the title, the show is basically about what constitutes a "real" human (this is even more blatant in the original Swedish version, which was called, you guessed it, Real Humans), and by nature of the show, which involves multiple intersecting storylines, a lot of characters have a lot of different answers.

For instance, in the Hawkins family, Laura is uncomfortable with getting a Synth for fear it'll "confuse" the kids into thinking it is a real person rather than a machine, and she ends up holding a lot of conversations with the Synth they get, Anita, about whether or not she can react in human ways, asking questions like, "Do you ever get scared?" and "What do you think of the music?", etcetera. Her husband is all for getting a Synth, and is much more convinced that Anita is nothing more than a machine made to serve them, hardly any different than a, I don't know, some inanimate device like a toaster or something. Their daughter, Matilda, hates Synths because, as an extremely smart girl, she resents them and predicts that for all her intelligence, she'll be rendered basically obsolete by these machines.

So already we've got at least three different points of view.

Moving out of the Hawkins family, there's Dr. Millican, who is quite willing to treat his Synths as if they're people (whether or not that means he treats them well depends on how well he likes the Synth in question, but he arguably treats them like people nevertheless), or at least, people who are supposed to do as he says. His Synth Vera brings up a whole other thing unto itself.

There's also Pete, whose job is to investigate crimes committed in relation to Synths. So I guess it really shouldn't surprise anyone that he really deeply resents Synths in general, seeing as he witnesses them causing problems every day of his life.

And, of course, there's Leo, but, well, I'm not going to go into that right now. It's complicated.

Point is, we've got like five different perspectives right there alone, and that's not even all the characters. It makes the show really rich. Which is why I don't understand my mother when she complains the show moves too slowly - I'd say the pacing is perfect. The show wouldn't be nearly as good if we didn't come to understand the characters so thoroughly as we do.

D) Acting

I don't talk about this enough, but the acting on this show is actually, like, really impressive.

Aside from Leo being played by the ever-talented Colin Morgan (whom I first knew as Merlin, and whose acting has always impressed me - he's what sold me on the show Merlin to begin with), you have to give props to the people who play the Synths, especially, but not limited to, Anita and Odi.

The Synths are not just robots that look like people. They move in a very specific way, and speak in a very specific way, and react to things in a very specific way. Apparently the actors playing Synths on this show had to go to Synth school to learn how to play these characters properly, and the commitment is really obvious and, I think, really admirable. It totally makes the show.

The ones playing humans also do a wonderful job, obviously, I just think it's necessary to point out the level of commitment inherent in having to play a non-human. And it's pulled off really really well.

E) Leo

What? How did that get in there? Silly Megan, Leo can't be a reason unto himself.

I really have a thing for Leo, okay?

E.1) Fascinating characters

There, that's somewhat more general, right?

All the characters are really complex and are never going in any one direction. Even what would be, on a different show, throwaway characters, like the mom and dad of the Hawkins, or their middle son who doesn't have any super important storylines around him, they're all very well-rounded characters who the writers clearly understand fully. And this is true of all the characters, and it makes a show with so many of them just wonderful, because it means that they're all very distinct in their voices and their perspectives and opinions. They're all... wait for it... quite human. Laura, especially, surprised me with how fleshed out she became, as well as the son, Toby, and Leo's sidekick, Max.

F) Motherhood

Not usually a topic to be explored on television all that much, or at least, not without the weird stigma of "if motherhood's being talked about on TV it's probably because some anti-hero had terrible mommy issues".

Humans doesn't do it like that, which is nice since motherhood is such a big deal on this show.

Because, of course, Laura's main issue with buying Anita is that Anita ends up usurping some of Laura's motherly duties, such as reading to her kid before she goes to bed, and playing games with her kids, and making their lunches. Basically all the scenes that take place in the Hawkins house for the first, I don't know, three or four episodes - it all has to do with how Laura sees herself as a mother, and where Anita fits into that.

There's also other mother-discussion that happens on the show that I really can't talk about without it being incredibly spoilery, so I won't, but know that it's a topic that comes up again and again, and it comes up tastefully and compellingly.

G) Family

I suppose this goes hand-in-hand with motherhood, but. Well.

See, what I find interesting and unique about this show is that it takes a concept that's inherently sci-fi-esque - robots serving people, and the question of, as they put it, "true artificial intelligence" - but surrounds it with storylines and themes that are inherently and necessarily about, well, humans. And people. Family and motherhood are two of the biggest of these.

Family is the one thing on this show that surrounds every single storyline, and involves every single character. From the dynamic of the Hawkins family, to Dr. Millican's love for his wife, to Pete's steadily worsening marriage, and I don't think it's a spoiler to say that even Leo (arguably the most detached character) is all about family. Like I mentioned before, the cornucopia of characters necessitates a cornucopia of perspectives, and that isn't limited to the ethics of robotics. They utilize the vastly different perspectives on this point as well.

See, when people talk about science fiction being used as an allegory for real life, I imagine that this is the quintessential example. Especially because the Synths, rather than distracting from the points that various characters make, instead serve to make their points clearer.

It's just really well done.

H) Realism

Oooh.

The realism in this show is sort of painfully on track at times.

It's very brutally honest about - hahaha - human nature.

(I physically cannot stop myself at this point, human is the only word to describe Humans, why am I a writer again?)

But just - the details. This alternate present is very believable, knowing what we do about, well, people. The "We Are People" group protesting the existence of Synths (based on a similar view to Laura - that having Synths blurs the lines between machines and people). And the idea of people using Synth maids for sex. And the Synth brothel thing. It's just... too realistic for comfort at times.

But it's that realism that the show is set in that makes it so great. If it didn't have that foundation of reality to build on, then nothing about it would make any sense at all. It makes the show what it is - a masterpiece of science fiction acknowledging every aspect, good and bad, of human nature, and calling it nothing more or less than exactly that. It isn't about good and evil (as much as I loathe one of the characters with a fiery passion). It's about people being people, for good or ill.

And I just think that's so cool.

In conclusion:

Yeah, I've talked a lot about the individual pieces here that make it great, and they all do apply. But I also find it necessary to reiterate that, like, the plot is actually compelling. And, because it is about human nature, you end up feeling affection for every character despite the mistakes they make (except one in particular, but he has the least development so...) because you understand their motivations, and their flaws and natures that led them there. And it has its moments of stunningly beautiful visuals (the major scene with the tree in Episode 8 comes to mind - and that's the least spoilery way I can put it). So if that's your thing, you can feel secure that it's in Humans' repertoire.

Even if sci-fi isn't your thing, I strongly recommend you give this show a try. The first season is just eight episodes long. They're all on Youtube. It's worth every second and more.

I love this show so much.

No, that isn't really the word.

Admire. I really admire this show, and everything it manages to pull off.

Hopefully this was a decent explanation of why that is.

And Thus Change Begins

As someone who literally can't remember a time when Stephen Harper was not prime minister (seeing as I wasn't exactly the most political at the age of seven), it's pretty significant for me that all of a sudden our prime minister is Justin Trudeau.

For me, this represents so many good things. On a personal level, it means I won't have to listen to my mother's "Stephen Harper is literally Satan" rants (why, yes, she is a bit more left than right, how did you guess?) but on a less personal level, it means that I'm probably going to start seeing actual change. And that'll be an interesting experience.

This is probably not the best way to prelude a post about the younger Trudeau, but I have to say it, so that people know how I'm politically bent: I really admire Pierre Trudeau. From what I learned in Socials 11, Pierre Trudeau was a pretty cool dude who implemented a lot of positive change for the country (including, but not limited to, patriating the Constitution, putting way more women in positions of government, making Canada an officially bilingual country, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and, if I recall correctly, it was he who introduced the concept of multiculturalism. I have to say this because people around have often asked, "Name one good thing he ever did." Hopefully that clears that up). I can't, for the life of me, understand people who dislike Pierre Trudeau or what he did while in government. (That said, I was only given a crash course of his political career in a Socials course - seeing as I wasn't alive at the time, I could be missing pieces of the story).

Big shoes for his son to fill, perhaps, but I definitely have faith in Justin Trudeau. Without going into too much detail on every single issue, of which, it turns out, there are a few, let's just say that my ideas align fairly well with his, and the Liberal party's.

And, in all honesty, just having a change from how the Conservative party was running the country will be good. The Conservatives did nothing for the environment at all (it was almost to the point of, "if I can't see it it can't see me" put your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalala" kind of denial), and their stance on the niqab was getting really hard to take. (There are issues around the niqab - mainly whether or not they'd be willing to show their faces if it came to an issue of security - but turning it into a women's rights issue is just not the way to go, here. How are you advocating for women's rights if you're telling them how to dress? How are you upholding the Canadian multiculturalism which is, in my experience, a pillar of our particular society? HOW IS IT "MORE CANADIAN" TO INFRINGE ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION???)

I am really surprised, not unpleasantly so, that we ended up with a Liberal majority. My original prediction had been that we'd have a Liberal government, but a minority. To go from a Conservative majority to a Liberal majority is a fairly radical change, and one that I'm quite ready for.

I'm glad this has happened, and I can't wait to see what changes happen as a result.

P.S "You young people only like Justin Trudeau because he's going to legalize marijuana!"

Yeah, because I, a straight-edge introvert whose most rebellious action of my high school years thus far has been to trick-or-treat on Halloween when my Dad told me I was too old, am totally going to have a really strong opinion about whether or not I get to smoke weed. My support of Trudeau and the Liberals definitely has nothing to do with my general ideological stance.

But, for the record:

"Is that really our biggest issue right now?" asks the anti-Trudeau "nice hair though" commercial.

No, it quite clearly is not, but isn't it rather hypocritical for you to point that out, Conservatives, having put so much effort into arresting those who use marijuana?

And, one last thing: no, marijuana still isn't our biggest issue. But there are a lot of good arguments to legalize it, regardless. Basically, what it amounts to is this: if you take the power away from the drug-dealers, than the country will be a safer place. Regulate the drug, and it won't be laced, and people who choose to use it will be safer. Collect the tax money from the sales and use it for something worthwhile. Put laws around who gets to use it - for example, an age limit. I really don't see a particularly strong downside to this course of action.

Fight me, Conservatives.

So, I Watched a Political Debate

So tonight my mom dragged me to a political debate.

It wasn't for the prime minister candidates, just for the candidates we vote for in our riding, which meant that most of the issues talked about were mainly municipal. I actually understood a lot more about what they were talking about than I expected to (thank you, Socials 11. Good class. Actual useful information, there). It helped that they preceded each question with some supplementary information, but still, it was nice to know that I'm actually not as politics-dumb as I thought I was.

Anyway, there were five debaters there, which surprised me: MP candidates from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Green Party were a given. I wasn't expecting to see someone representing the Libertarian Party.

As it turns out, that was for good reason.

If you'll allow me to describe his side of the debate in metaphor, I'd say that it was basically like watching someone have their back turned the entire time because they thought the camera was behind them. "Look this way!" call the other candidates onstage. "The camera's over here!" "No," he says in return, "you're wrong, it's here. I know it is, even though you all are telling me and the audience is telling me, but I know I'm right."

It was amusing at first. Then it wasn't so much.

But, good Lord. The way he was talking, you'd think we live in an Orwell novel. "The government is imposing its decisions on us without our consent!" "The government is stealing our money and we never get it back!" I'm not sure if he ever actually used the word "totalitarian" or if my brain self-inserted that into his monologues, but either way, it was sort of like giving that crazy guy with the "The end is nigh!" sign two minutes to say his piece into a microphone.

And when he wasn't going on about how the government is screwing us over every chance it gets, he was completely off-base on all the issues. "What would you do to advocate for aboriginal people?" asks the mediator. "I think I'd leave them alone. We've done enough to them."

Fun fact of the day: advocating for people actually necessitates acknowledging them, and doing nothing will change nothing about their station.

"Would you advocate to have municipal governments recognized in the Constitution?" asks the mediator. "Oh good," I think to myself, "I learned all about this in Law class already, what an interesting question! I never really thought of the implications of not having municipal governments constitutionally recognized, but surely it must complicate jurisdiction issues and the like."

"I never heard that municipal governments weren't in the constitution until now," says Libertarian Guy.

I don't know, I feel like a high school student three weeks into a Law course shouldn't know more about the Constitution than someone who calls themselves a politician.

"What would you do to help the environment?"

"Well, I think that global warming is just silly nonsense."

Oh, yes.

And when the crowd booed, he accused everyone of being ignorant.

He later complained about it being a "hostile crowd".

I WONDER WHY.

Anyway, I've said enough about him. He was just annoying, but it's not like he matters in the scheme of things.

So, the Conservative MP candidate.

Boy, can this guy talk. On and on and on he talks, until I start to zone out. Eventually, I start noticing this. "Don't zone out," I think to myself. "That's what he wants you to do. Listen. Form an opinion. As Jon Stewart has trained me to do, pick out the bull." So I started making more of an effort to pay attention.

First of all, he starts off every one of his things with, "This is a very important issue." Yes, we know it is. If it wasn't important, I'm sure we wouldn't be asking you about your position on it.

And then he talks. For a long time. Without really saying anything, though, that's important. He reiterates, in a lot of different and varying fashions, that the issue is important. He states, in very general terms, sort of what the Conservative party can do and/or is doing about it. He brings up local examples, which usually fall apart as soon as open discussion starts and the NDP starts ripping him. I'll get to her later, though.

I didn't learn anything about the Conservative party I didn't already know. I get the impression that he was trying to appeal to a mostly Liberal/NDP leaning audience without ever actually saying anything his party wouldn't approve of, leading him to very general statements with a distinct lack of actual substance.

Basically, think of a kid writing a two thousand word essay about a book they didn't read. Long, well-written, proof-read, certainly; but does it say anything worthwhile? Probably not.

Next we come to the Liberal MP candidate.

I forgot he was there half the time, to be honest, and that's something, considering he was literally in the center of the stage. He could have been invisible for how much I noticed him. I'm sure he was saying things that were decent, but could I tell you any of it? Not really.

I hate to reduce politics to this, but as it turns out, charisma is important for politicians, and, well, anyone who does public speaking as part of their job. This guy did not have any, and therefore I can't think of a single notable thing he said. Call me shallow, but it does seem important.

Next up, Green Party.

This guy. This guy was smart. This guy was well-spoken. He was also quite involved in our local community, which he wasted no time in pointing out, but that's okay. He talked about the issues properly, actually proposing solutions and stances on subjects that I found other candidates dancing around.

The other thing, of course, that really earned my respect, was him cutting through one of Conservative Guy's monologues with a, "Sorry, what's your point?"

Good. Challenge that dude. I, as the audience, don't want to hear a long-winded anecdote designed to appear to supplement the argument but actually distract from the lack thereof.

Yeah, if I thought the Green Party had a chance, (and if I could vote yet) I might be voting for him, because he seemed to understand what was going on, and how to answer things in a way that seemed authentic without seeming arrogant.

And finally, the NDP, with the only woman candidate! Represent!

Whew. She was killing it.

She was well educated in her opinions, well spoken in her positions concerning them, and was not afraid to point out that her experiences (as a younger woman) were sometimes more relevant to the issues being discussed than the others. It definitely showed. She was also very vocal during the open discussion, challenging people's opinions and forcing them to answer for themselves.

Two things that turned me off: first of all, I heard a lot about how the NDP had a plan for that. They're proposing a plan for this. We're going to fund this, and that, and everything. I found myself asking "How?" a lot of the time. However, I find it hard to fault her for this, because I assume that these are complicated things that take more than thirty seconds to explain.

The other thing is that she, especially near the end, started talking about how much the Conservative government was doing wrong, a lot of which was met with a reply from Conservative Guy, "That's just not true!"

Now, due to my personal biases, I'm more inclined to take her word for it because she didn't beat around the bush like Conservative Guy, and because she has good credentials as a journalist, meaning she's probably pretty good when it comes to things like information. I realized after a while, though, that objectively, it was essentially her word against Conservative Guy's.

And when you think of it like that, you realize that it was sort of like reading a Wikipedia article - I want to trust it, and often do, but at the same time, I need sources. Because the thing is, she could have said, "The Conservatives are killing puppies, isn't that terrible!" Yes, of course that's wrong, and I don't want to support people who do that. But how do I know that what you said is actually true? I don't, basically, not in that moment, and she didn't give anything about how she knew what she knew.

Which, again, is hard to fault her for, as they were very short segments of time to pack in some substantial stuff, but it still read as a little bit... off.

But let's make this clear - her answers did have substance. In contrast to Conservative Guy, who would talk endlessly without saying anything, her answers were short and sweet and answered the question directly.

Basically, NDP gal was slaying.

And, all in all, it was a really interesting experience, and actually rather satisfying. It was nice to discover that I actually understood the issues being discussed, and had an opinion about how to go about them. It was also really interesting because, in Socials 11 (which, as I've mentioned, was an extremely useful class), the course straight-up outlines clear-cut, useful solutions to some of these problems, mostly environmental issues, and it's interesting to see some people dance around them while others - mainly Green Guy - say, "This isn't possible now but we will take steps so that it is possible and in place by 2020" or whatever. It never before occurred to me how much politics is simply a mixture of education and ideology.

Anyway, it was nice to find out that I knew enough to disagree with people on issues and agree with others. It's also interesting because I never really thought of MPs as meaning much except personifying votes for the Prime Minister. However, it became more clear than ever for me that MPs, as being actually part of Parliament, do have a certain amount of power regardless of whether their party wins Prime Minister, and that voting with an MP in mind instead of the leader of their party isn't actually as ridiculous a course of action as I had originally perceived it.

Basically, I learned a lot about Canadian politics that day - a lot of stuff that I knew in theory but had never completely understood in practise. And I'm really glad I did.

A Quick Note Concerning Arthuriana and BBC Merlin

I know, this is the sort of stuff that's supposed to go on my nerd blog, and probably it'll end up there too, but I think this has an element of interest to it that can put it here too. Also they're both my blogs and I'll deaL WITH THEM HOW I PLEASE.

So my mother was telling one of her friends how obsessed with Merlin I am. (Which is super great, thanks for giving me that reputation, Mom). And she says, and I quote: "It's a terrible show. It's based on the Arthurian legends and it just bastardizes them."

Leaving aside her extremely poor opinion of the show, which I find inexplicable (which is fair, considering everyone finds my love for it inexplicable), one cannot 'bastardize' the legend. It's actually not a thing that can happen.

Because here's the thing: there's actually no one legend. There is no set canon. Every author for the past few centuries have re-invented everything about this legend to suit their own needs, and BBC Merlin is just contributing to the trend.

For instance, in some versions of the legend, Morgana (who is sometimes called Morgaine and sometimes called Morgan, and sometimes she's Morgan le Fay) is a positive character. Sometimes she's a healer. Sometimes she's a heinous bitch/evil sorceress who causes the downfall of Camelot. Sometimes she's Arthur's sister. Sometimes she has an incestuous relationship with Arthur. Sometimes she isn't, and doesn't. Sometimes she isn't even a thing.

What about Guinevere? Sometimes she's caught between Lancelot and Arthur. Sometimes she's all about Lancelot. Sometimes she has an evil half-sister who convinces Arthur that she's the real Guinevere.

Sometimes Lancelot is raised by the Lady of the Lake (hence Lancelot du Lac). Sometimes he isn't.

Sometimes the Lady of the Lake is called Vivane, sometimes Niniane, sometimes Elaine, sometimes Nimueh. Sometimes she gives Arthur Excalibur from the lake. Sometimes he pulls it out of a rock.

Sometimes Mordred isn't even a thing. Sometimes he is. Sometimes he's Arthur's bastard son. Sometimes he's the bastard son of Arthur and Morgana. Sometimes he's completely unrelated to Arthur at all.

And don't even get me started on Merlin. Sometimes he isn't even Merlin. Sometimes he's the Merlin, a high priest of the Druids, and a new Merlin is elected when the last one dies. Sometimes he is Merlin, as in that is his name, and he is a sorcerer. Sometimes he's young, with a sister. Sometimes he's old. Sometimes he's Arthur's foster father. Sometimes he isn't. Sometimes he sexually harasses his student - usually Nimueh, who isn't always the Lady of the Lake - so much that she traps him in a tree. Sometimes he lives his life backwards, so that his specialty isn't so much prophecy so much as he already lived what happens in the future. Sometimes knowing the future just isn't a thing with him. Sometimes he and Guinevere are a thing. Sometimes not.

There are really just entirely too many version of this particular mythos, most of which contradict one another. Sometimes the same work even contradicts itself repeatedly. (I think of the story of the Grail, which Chretien de Troyes could not find it in him to finish, and it apparently ended mid-sentence. Thus began a saga of several different authors attempting to continue it, one taking up after the other after one gave up, and eventually ended up with four continuations and two different endings due to authors not communicating and both attempting to finish it at once. Supposedly, all read together, it's a chaotic mess of conflicting plotlines and themes and characterization, as well as the fact that most authors didn't even agree with Chretien on what a grail even is).

The point being, with this many versions of what is, essentially, the same story, you can't really claim one is any more the "real" story than any other. (Unless you're Thomas Mallory, in which case you write something so cohesive and good that you effectively ruin the party for everyone.) (Can you tell I've been doing some research?)

The show doesn't "bastardize" the legend, because it's just not possible to do such a thing to a story that already has so much history of being a complete mess. It adapts it. Which is the only thing that every author of a version of the story have in common - they're all just adaptations. The Arthurian legend is basically like having a bunch of characters who have a sort of basic function (Arthur is king, Lancelot's a knight, Guinevere's a queen, etc.), and then everyone else gets to write their own fanfiction about them and their relationships and how the story goes, and they're all as valid as any other.

Which I think is something that's kinda cool about the whole thing, and that's why that particular complaint bothered me.

Heads Up!

I made a new blog. It's specifically for my nerdy rantings and analyses and the like, so that whenever I'm analyzing yet another show or book or what-have-you, you don't have to be bothered/cluttered with it over here. See how considerate I am?

It's called The Unapologetic Nerd for reasons that I think should be fairly obvious, and it can be found here:  http://theunapologeticnerd.blogspot.ca/

So if anyone's ever interested in my more nerdy and obsessive ramblings, well, that's where to find them.

Just thought you ought to know.

Super Quick Show Recommendation Because I Can't Not Talk About It

I recently began watching a show called Humans, pretty much with no idea what it was or ever hearing about it before.

This show holds the record for the shortest amount of time it took to get me completely suckered in.

It handles a familiar concept (the ethical ambiguities regarding robots, namely), but it does so extremely intelligently, and from a lot of different angles, which is nice. There are several different storylines which eventually intersect, and each one offers a different perspective on the subject. I cannot stress enough how smart this show is.

Secondly, because there are so many different storylines, this show has a lot of characters. But it handles each character gracefully, and so beautifully communicates the complexity of each one of them. They're all intelligent people with their own lives and struggles and thoughts, but because they are all intelligent and you do have a respect for all of them, you understand their actions and sympathize even when they're wrong.

And, if all that weren't enough, the emotional tone of the show is just so strong. I recently watched episode seven (there are eight in the first, and so far only, season), and the ending may have broken my heart more swiftly than anything I can think of. Like, I felt physical pain in my soul. It was beautiful.

It's emotionally strong in other ways as well, of course. Also, the show is very good at withholding enough information to keep you wanting more, but not enough to make it so nothing makes any sense.

In conclusion, this show is honestly wonderful in so many ways and I recommend it with all my heart.

Did Homer Pick the Losing Side?

Disclaimer: I talk a lot about the story of the Iliad here, which I decided to risk because I know the story (and its various versions) quite well, as it was part of my Ancient Greek mythology education/becoming the encyclopedia, but my discussion may be inaccurate or hampered due to the fact that I haven't actually read the Iliad yet. Please don't throw rotten tomatoes at me. 

I was thinking about the story of the Trojan War. This is pretty common for me these days, since the Trojan War plays a pretty big role at the end of the novel I'm writing, and I'm always trying to find a way to twist the story to fit my needs while still retaining a certain amount of faithfulness.

Anyway, I was thinking about the Trojan War, and it occurred to me: Homer doesn't seem to like the Greeks in that story. If anything, he appears to prefer the Trojans.

That's a pretty interesting observation, if I do say so myself, because Homer was obviously a Greek writer (even more obviously as there's no actual evidence to suggest that Troy ever actually existed. If anything, it was probably part of Persia or something).

But when that occurred to me, I started thinking it through. And the fascinating thing is that the evidence seems to agree.

The first Greek character I thought of was Agamemnon, naturally, and everyone even in Ancient times would agree that Agamemnon was a huge douche (which is why it's so weird to see him portrayed as a positive character in versions of the story that want to take the winning side). For one thing, when the sea was too rough to be able to sail to Troy properly and several ships sunk in the attempt, Agamemnon decided that the best way to appease the gods would be to sacrifice his youngest daughter, Iphigenia, to them. He literally kills his youngest daughter in the hopes that Poseidon will calm the sea so he can cross it. Surprisingly, it works, but the thing is, even in the Ancient world people thought that human sacrifice was disgusting and barbaric. Audiences watching this play would not have thought this a reasonable course of action.

And to back up the fact that this is a disgusting act, he does get punished for it at the end, when his wife, Clytemnestra, murders him in the bath. But the thing is, Homer doesn't seem to like Clytemnestra (also Greek, naturally) that much either. She was unfaithful, for one thing - she had a lover by name of Aegisthus, who helped her kill Agamemnon, along with the prophetess Cassandra who I'll get to later. And in the Ancient world, it was definitely a no-no for a woman to be unfaithful - it's a no-no now, even, but it was much more serious back then. A man could divorce his wife if she so much as spoke to a man who wasn't her husband, and this story is quite specific in Aegisthus being her lover.

But don't worry! Clytemnestra and her lover get punished for their sins as well. Clytemnestra's remaining children, Orestes and Electra, kill both of them for their crimes.

Back to Agamemnon for a moment, he does something else that's quite negative in the story: he takes Cassandra (yes, the tragic prophetess, that one) as a concubine. I'm not as certain about the Ancient world's opinion of concubines, though with the knowledge I possess, it's hard to imagine them condemning it too hard, women being less than people in the eyes of this society at large. However, in one version of the story, he does this in a particularly cruel fashion that I'm sure even the Ancient Greeks wouldn't have approved of - he tells the other Greeks that Cassandra was raped, making her unclean, and making it so that he's the only one who could want her for a concubine. (This whole "unclean" thing also speaks to how profoundly misogynistic they are, but of course, we knew that). It's implied, also, that Clytemnestra's jealousy for Cassandra having her husband's favour is one of the reasons that she and Aegisthus kill them both, as well as avenging Iphigenia.

And while we're on the subject of Cassandra, there's another Greek character in this story who likewise isn't a strong case for the Greek's morality. Ajax the Lesser - yes, this is his actual title, because people didn't want him confused with a different Ajax, who was the strongest fighter in all of Greece. Anyways, in versions of the story where Agamemnon tells the truth about the rape of Cassandra, it's Ajax the Lesser who commits this act. This would have been bad enough, because, for all their ideological flaws, the Ancient Greeks were all about consent (even if their version of consent was different than ours - they didn't have an age of consent, for one thing, and I'm sure the idea of coercion didn't play into anything at all, but nonetheless, consent was a big deal), but what's worse, he finds her in the middle of praying to Athena, and commits the act right there in Athena's temple.

This, naturally, would have been seen as dirty, especially in the temple of what many people consider the Greek's most important god - the Acropolis, possibly the most famous and important Ancient Greek temple still standing, was dedicated to Athena - so, of course, people would not have liked Ajax the Lesser.

And the more I think about it, the more I realize that the only truly positive Greek character I can think of is Achilles. And even he isn't entirely untainted - the only reason he's next to invincible (besides his heel, of course) is because his mother dipped him in the Styx, which is an act full of pride that the gods really do not approve of. So of course, possibly as a punishment for this failing of his mother's, Achilles ends up dying in horrible pain.

You see, this isn't only a matter of treating the Greek characters badly because it's a tragedy and there's no story otherwise - you definitely get the feeling that you aren't supposed to like them. Agamemnon being murdered by his wife isn't tragic, it's just desserts, and the same goes for when his wife is murdered by her children. Ajax the Lesser is literally punished with death by Athena and Poseidon for what he did in Athena's temple, which, again, is less tragedy and more just desserts. I'm less clear on whether or not we're supposed to root for Achilles, but I do know that we're not meant to approve of Achilles' mother's act, which is yet another example of Homer treating the Greeks with disdain.

Meanwhile, in Troy, the characters are largely positive. The Greeks view the Paris and Helen situation as an abduction, when they themselves see it as an elopement, and the thing is, Paris was granted Helen by Aphrodite, meaning that at least one god is in favour of this union (hint: if the gods like it, so should you). And any idea that Helen doesn't actually love Paris is completely thrown out the window when, as he lays dying from his wounds, she literally climbs a mountain to ask a nymph to heal him. Homer wants us to know that Paris and Helen are actually in love.

Interestingly, Homer doesn't want us to think that Paris is actually any good at fighting - out of speculation, I'd say that this is to set him further apart from the Greeks of the story. See, he's good at the bow and arrow, but not any actual fighting in duels (Aphrodite actually spirits him away from a duel at one point because he's losing so bad), and the bow and arrow is kind of the coward's-way-out sort of weapon here. But even though Homer wants us to know that he sucks, he also gives Paris the very attractive trait of graciously recognizing that and admitting it rather than being indignant about it. Paris also gets the honour of delivering the fatal blow to the otherwise-invincible Achilles (with the help of Apollo), and these things together make me think that Paris is someone we're supposed to like, and someone whose death is actually supposed to be tragic.

Along with the Trojans, there's Helen, who genuinely loves Paris and tries to save him and is rewarded for this by literally ascending to Olympus.

There's also Cassandra, a figure who is only supposed to be viewed as tragic, as she predicts horrible futures and finds herself utterly unable to prevent them and eventually gets driven insane by this. That, along with how much she gets screwed over when those Greek bastards like Ajax and Agamemnon come into play, is definitely a tragic aspect, something we're supposed to feel pretty bad about for her, in direct opposition to the main Greek woman, Clytemnestra, who we're not supposed to feel bad for whatsoever when she eventually dies.

Aeneas, a Trojan warrior and something along the lines of Cassandra's third cousin, is one of the only Trojan warriors to escape when they lose, and, as Cassandra predicts, he sails away and eventually founds one of the greatest empires to ever exist - this myth puts him as the founder of Rome. (Apparently Homer didn't realize that the Romans had their own myth about their founder, which, in much more Roman fashion, included feral children and wolves). Now, I don't know about you, but putting a Trojan warrior as the founder of the greatest empire in history seems to me like quite the honour. And I just find it interesting that Homer kept bestowing all this honour on the Trojan characters, when A) Homer himself was Greek, and B) he knew how it ended. He was under no illusions about who won the Trojan war.

(Bearing in mind, of course, that the story also Greek-ifies the Trojans a bit - after all, it has them worshiping Greek gods when, in all likelihood, they would have had their own gods unbeknownst to us. But I find that to be more indicative of ignorance of culture, rather than an attack on Trojan identity, whatever that may be).

Now, of course, one reason for this would be that when writing a tragedy, it's much more tragic if the protagonists lose, and if that's the tack you're taking then the only logical protagonists are the Trojans. However, that doesn't really explain why the story goes to such great lengths to make the Greeks so completely abhorrent. The tragedy could have been complete even if the Trojans were honourable and the Greeks were, I don't know, morally neutral. After all, if not for the separate characters whose actions we know to be gross, an audience could forgive them. By their perspective, Helen was abducted, after all, and the story very easily could have had an audience rooting for the Trojans without entirely demonizing the Greeks.

Which, as I say, is why that choice is so baffling to me.

A theory I came up with that I rather like is that a reason for this could be that all the major Greek characters in the legend are Spartan. As a writer, Homer would not have been Spartan - the culture was very different from Sparta to the rest of the Greece. Sparta was all about the military, whereas the general non-Sparta part of Greece was much more oriented toward philosophy and art and all those things that we associate with Ancient Greece - including writing. And I find it possible that Homer could have felt a certain amount of contempt toward Sparta for their un-enlightened ways, and that it could have translated into his work.

And I think that's kind of backed up by the reasons we're not supposed to like them. Agamemnon and Ajax are typical testosterone driven creatures who, sure, can fight, but are savages. This is in direct contrast to characters like Paris of Troy, who we are supposed to like, and who can barely fight to save his life.

This is interesting because it would have been easy to be contemptuous toward a character who can't fight - especially considering said character effectively started the war - and revere the characters who are warriors. But Homer does the exact opposite, which makes me wonder about his opinion of warriors - or Spartans - in general, and if he didn't think them all a bit savage.

That's the best theory I can come up with, anyway. The terrible regard he has for his Greek characters seems bizarre through any other lens.

I love thinking about this stuff. It's just so fascinating. I especially find it interesting because it directly opposes the more modern habit of choosing to tell a triumphant story and sympathizing with the winning side, even if the winning side in question did so by terrible means (you only have to look at movies like American Sniper to see what I mean). Meanwhile, Homer decided that the heroes of his story would be honourable losers rather than savage winners - even if that meant siding with his nation's enemies.

That's not a perfect analogy - there are some obvious differences of circumstance - but there are also some interesting parallels.

I mean, I just think that when you look at it from this perspective, it opens up a whole new window into the mindset of the Ancient Greeks versus our current mindset. I mean, sure, I've seen a few modern stories that sympathize with the losing side (I'm mostly thinking of the recent slough of movies depicting America's various violent stints in the Middle East), but never ever above the winning side. Some have acknowledged the distasteful methods used, but they tend to also try to justify it. None have ever tried as hard to distance itself from such distasteful methods as Homer distanced himself from Greek general Agamemnon.

Again, it isn't a perfect analogy, but I do also think it's a parallel worth looking at.

And I just think that recognizing the oddness of the perspective from which the author chooses to tell the story opens up a fascinating vein concerning how people thought way back when, what their mindsets were like and, as the case may be, how flexible their sympathies were.

And being able to look at that and gauge that kind of meaning from it... well, I'd say that's kind of awesome.

Anyway. This is the sort of thing I think about on road trips. Hopefully I'm not the only one who finds it fascinating. (Oh god I'm the only one aren't I?)