I just finished reading The Surrogates, a five-issue SF comic series written by Robert Venditti and drawn by Brett Weldele. Published in 2005 and 2006, this is not exactly breaking news. However, if you listened to me and went out to see District 9, then you likely caught the trailer for the comic's upcoming film adaptation.
Now, I know I go on and on about this so I'm going to spare you the typical diatribe about remakes and adaptations. I'm going to play this one a little differently.
The Surrogates was good. Really freaking good, actually. Now maybe I totally missed the train on this one, because it certainly happens from time to time, but I didn't even know this series existed until I saw the trailer. I suspect a large portion of the folks who go to see this will not have been exposed to the comic.
Get your hands on it and read it. Do it for this little exercise, but also just because you won't regret it. After wading through all that Marvel junk, I decided to take a little sabbatical from comics. Thankfully, Venditti's imaginative series is a welcome change, fun and moving, smart and concise. However, it isn't quite Star Trek or Watchmen-grade nerd holy ground material and that's why it's perfect for this experiment. We can look at the comic and its adaptation and discuss the market and medium jump without having to fight against the never-ending current of ad hominem arguments that involve the term "fanboy."
Some things aren't meant to be accessible on the scale that Hollywood producers require. Sometimes when you force them to be, you lose that spark that made them original in the first place. A comic book has the luxury of assuming the reader is at least somewhat interested in the far-fetched and extraordinary -- it's free to experiment. On the other hand, a major motion picture is forced by the system to play to the center to justify its typically extreme level of financial investment.
This system obviously makes money, but it's not exactly geared toward preserving the artistic spirit of the source material. This is the root of my problem with adaptations, it's not just blind devotion to a franchise, as many like to imply.
Read the comic. Watch the movie. Decide for yourself.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Healthcare rant supplement
I realized while compulsively rereading my previous post that it was a little meandering. This is partially due to the fact that politicians, citizens and the media are capable of talking about this serious and nuanced issue for HOURS using nothing but empty, out-of-context buzz words all the while pretending it counts as substantive discourse. This offends me not just as a writer or a member of this community, but as a living being with a brain. Consequently, I may have spent more time thinking up zingers than making sense. My apologies.
However, the chief problem was that I attempted to dance around the issue most central to any article written on the topic. I failed to adequately address and explain my own feeling as to whether or not we should adopt some sort of national federal healthcare system as seems to be the plan.
That's because I don't know how I feel.
I don't like to use such titles, but in this case I feel it may save us some time. I consider myself to be an anarchist of a kind. This is primarily because I believe that large-scale, hierarchical society is a dangerous, destructive thing which rewards terrible behavior while simultaneously providing an ethical and logistical shield for that behavior. I relate very strongly to the new tribalists. I agree that tribe and band scale civilization is the way to go in the long run. I am not -- obviously -- a primitivist, but most importantly, I do not presume to have all the answers. I do not claim to know what the stable, sustainable and sane culture I hope to see will look like. However, I must point out -- emphatically -- that what we are doing now is not working.
Would I like to have free or at least more affordable healthcare at my disposal? Of course I would, don't be stupid.
The real question is whether or not I can justify it. It's problematic to say the least. A system so vast could only be managed by the kind of massive bureaucracy I despise.
Come to think of it, healthcare is a major sticking point for most people when I'm selling the whole new tribalism package. While I do believe it should be possible to decentralize without losing MRI scanners and dialysis machines and whatnot, realistically I expect we shall have to do without much of that.
What if you get sick or seriously injured? This is the obvious question, and I have no easy answer for it. Things will be difficult, to be certain. However, I am also certain that life beyond our current insane civilization -- life without work-related stress and injury, without the poisons of industry, without the cars and the tanks and the stealth bombers will be many times healthier than life is now. On the whole, it will be better for people. This I believe.
I know that sounds harsh -- "Things will be difficult," -- harsh and ominous and maybe even evil. It sounds, but it isn't. I am not advocating a world in which we eschew all technology -- provided it can be used responsibly. I am also not advocating a system in which we all follow strict rules of behavior. Such matters would be delegated to the individuals in one's own tribe of willing participants. I see no reason why a tribe or many tribes would be unable to dedicate time and energy to caring for the ill. Most would, I suspect. The level of care provided -- and the level of commitment required by the fit -- in such an arrangement would always be tailored to the will of the participants.
Contrast that to the situation we have now in the United States. Many are without insurance and thus if a serious issue arises, must seek emergency treatment and possibly crippling debt. Those fortunate enough to have medical insurance pay monthly fees to a corporation which exists primarily to turn a profit. If something happens and medical care is required, these companies actually employ people tasked with finding a way to avoid paying for it. You could fill the corporation's coffers for decades only to be dropped at the moment you need their services in exchange.
Who's evil now?
That said, we do not live in the world of my imagination. We live here, now. I believe that world can exist, but I know it will not happen overnight. Would I like to see some sort of less evil alternative to the current system in the meantime? Of course I would, don't be stupid.
The danger, I think, would be to inflate such a minor concession into a victory of any substance. In fact, we would have to be particularly wary of the new power dynamic it would create. I do think, though, that in the short term, it would likely be better to put something like healthcare into the hands of a body that at least has to pretend to listen to us.
However, the chief problem was that I attempted to dance around the issue most central to any article written on the topic. I failed to adequately address and explain my own feeling as to whether or not we should adopt some sort of national federal healthcare system as seems to be the plan.
That's because I don't know how I feel.
I don't like to use such titles, but in this case I feel it may save us some time. I consider myself to be an anarchist of a kind. This is primarily because I believe that large-scale, hierarchical society is a dangerous, destructive thing which rewards terrible behavior while simultaneously providing an ethical and logistical shield for that behavior. I relate very strongly to the new tribalists. I agree that tribe and band scale civilization is the way to go in the long run. I am not -- obviously -- a primitivist, but most importantly, I do not presume to have all the answers. I do not claim to know what the stable, sustainable and sane culture I hope to see will look like. However, I must point out -- emphatically -- that what we are doing now is not working.
Would I like to have free or at least more affordable healthcare at my disposal? Of course I would, don't be stupid.
The real question is whether or not I can justify it. It's problematic to say the least. A system so vast could only be managed by the kind of massive bureaucracy I despise.
Come to think of it, healthcare is a major sticking point for most people when I'm selling the whole new tribalism package. While I do believe it should be possible to decentralize without losing MRI scanners and dialysis machines and whatnot, realistically I expect we shall have to do without much of that.
What if you get sick or seriously injured? This is the obvious question, and I have no easy answer for it. Things will be difficult, to be certain. However, I am also certain that life beyond our current insane civilization -- life without work-related stress and injury, without the poisons of industry, without the cars and the tanks and the stealth bombers will be many times healthier than life is now. On the whole, it will be better for people. This I believe.
I know that sounds harsh -- "Things will be difficult," -- harsh and ominous and maybe even evil. It sounds, but it isn't. I am not advocating a world in which we eschew all technology -- provided it can be used responsibly. I am also not advocating a system in which we all follow strict rules of behavior. Such matters would be delegated to the individuals in one's own tribe of willing participants. I see no reason why a tribe or many tribes would be unable to dedicate time and energy to caring for the ill. Most would, I suspect. The level of care provided -- and the level of commitment required by the fit -- in such an arrangement would always be tailored to the will of the participants.
Contrast that to the situation we have now in the United States. Many are without insurance and thus if a serious issue arises, must seek emergency treatment and possibly crippling debt. Those fortunate enough to have medical insurance pay monthly fees to a corporation which exists primarily to turn a profit. If something happens and medical care is required, these companies actually employ people tasked with finding a way to avoid paying for it. You could fill the corporation's coffers for decades only to be dropped at the moment you need their services in exchange.
Who's evil now?
That said, we do not live in the world of my imagination. We live here, now. I believe that world can exist, but I know it will not happen overnight. Would I like to see some sort of less evil alternative to the current system in the meantime? Of course I would, don't be stupid.
The danger, I think, would be to inflate such a minor concession into a victory of any substance. In fact, we would have to be particularly wary of the new power dynamic it would create. I do think, though, that in the short term, it would likely be better to put something like healthcare into the hands of a body that at least has to pretend to listen to us.
Monday, August 17, 2009
I'm going to make a simple request
I want all the sign-waving, colonial garb-wearing, jingoistic slogan-shouting racist idiots protesting healthcare of all things to put their money where their mouths are.
Central to the whole argument -- if you can get someone to talk about it for ten seconds without resorting to non sequitur ramblings about twentieth century autocrats -- is that it is scary to think what the government could do with the power over our health. I have no problem with that sentiment. In fact, you can start just about any sentence with "It's scary to think what the government could do with..." and I'm going to be there with you.
Now, I'm going to list the things that these folks have been perfectly willing to trust the government with:
The power to determine our reproductive rights, the power to determine which relationships are valid and which are not, the power to imprison us if we disobey, the power to force us to imprison others if they disobey, the power to weigh human lives against the interests of the corporations who really run things, and... I feel like I'm forgetting something important... Oh yeah, enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over.
Am I to believe that providing an alternative to the greed-based healthcare system we currently have in the vague hopes of improving it is the final straw? That's the key piece of evidence that finally turned you against big government? Get serious. You're not fooling anyone.
I can't think of a better use for the government than pitting it against big business. It's got to be a lot more pleasant than the way it works now, with the government rescuing and supporting corporations while stifling our freedom, seizing the fruits of our labor, using us for cannon fodder, outlawing our behavior, and locking us up if we have a problem with it.
That's where your argument falls apart, assholes wearing tri-cornered hats. You can wave your "don't tread on me" flags around until you keel over from the pre-existing condition your awesome private insurance provider will drop you for, but you fail to recognize the scope of the issue.
If we're not going to dismantle the large-scale corporate model simultaneously -- and I do hate saying this -- we kind of need the state. I thought the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent bailouts put to rest all that invisible hand nonsense. if you leave them alone, the corporations will screw you. They will screw you and me and your grandma and her dog for a dollar, total.
So go ahead and kill the government and leave the corporations intact. You watch what happens. You'll get rid of the only power that can stand between you and a real boot on your face.
Orwell was wrong, Huxley was wrong. The government is not behind your problems. It's just the tool used by those who are. I say we might as well use it to make things suck a little less while I convince you we could do without all of the above.
Please stop playing at revolution. You're doing it wrong.
Central to the whole argument -- if you can get someone to talk about it for ten seconds without resorting to non sequitur ramblings about twentieth century autocrats -- is that it is scary to think what the government could do with the power over our health. I have no problem with that sentiment. In fact, you can start just about any sentence with "It's scary to think what the government could do with..." and I'm going to be there with you.
Now, I'm going to list the things that these folks have been perfectly willing to trust the government with:
The power to determine our reproductive rights, the power to determine which relationships are valid and which are not, the power to imprison us if we disobey, the power to force us to imprison others if they disobey, the power to weigh human lives against the interests of the corporations who really run things, and... I feel like I'm forgetting something important... Oh yeah, enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over.
Am I to believe that providing an alternative to the greed-based healthcare system we currently have in the vague hopes of improving it is the final straw? That's the key piece of evidence that finally turned you against big government? Get serious. You're not fooling anyone.
I can't think of a better use for the government than pitting it against big business. It's got to be a lot more pleasant than the way it works now, with the government rescuing and supporting corporations while stifling our freedom, seizing the fruits of our labor, using us for cannon fodder, outlawing our behavior, and locking us up if we have a problem with it.
That's where your argument falls apart, assholes wearing tri-cornered hats. You can wave your "don't tread on me" flags around until you keel over from the pre-existing condition your awesome private insurance provider will drop you for, but you fail to recognize the scope of the issue.
If we're not going to dismantle the large-scale corporate model simultaneously -- and I do hate saying this -- we kind of need the state. I thought the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent bailouts put to rest all that invisible hand nonsense. if you leave them alone, the corporations will screw you. They will screw you and me and your grandma and her dog for a dollar, total.
So go ahead and kill the government and leave the corporations intact. You watch what happens. You'll get rid of the only power that can stand between you and a real boot on your face.
Orwell was wrong, Huxley was wrong. The government is not behind your problems. It's just the tool used by those who are. I say we might as well use it to make things suck a little less while I convince you we could do without all of the above.
Please stop playing at revolution. You're doing it wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
