If you’ve left a comment here in the last two days only to see it disappear later, could you email me at AlyssaObserves [at] gmail [dot] com with the following info:

1) Which post it was.

2) Whether it was a reply to another comment or a stand-alone comment?

I’m incredibly sorry about this. And please know we’re working as hard as we can, internally and with Facebook, to get this fixed.

-250 books all people, male or not, should read. Donna Tartt and Possession in particular.

-Sam Waterston will fire Keith Olbermann in Aaron Sorkin’s new HBO show.

-I’d double what I pay for Netflix if HBO and Showtime would get on board.

-Is writing an art, or a craft?

-I wonder what character on The Wire Eric Holder thinks he has most in common with.

Charlie Jane Anders’ post on the rising tide of alien invasion movies and asymmetric warfare is awesome great, and I encourage you to read the whole thing. But I want to quibble a bit with a couple of points she makes towards the end of what I think is an otherwise excellent argument:

We know, deep down, that we may one day be on the other side of this equation, that the United States won’t be the world’s main superpower forever. Past superpowers have often only realized their new status when they suddenly faced a sudden, damaging assault from a rising power. Plus, as the main power on the receiving end of asymmetric warfare, we can’t really understand it unless we see it from the other side.

Science fiction is also uniquely suited to talking about the realities of post-Cold War fighting, because so much of asymmetric warfare deals with a technological superiority on one side. The idea of how you cope with a technological strategic advantage is one that science fiction can easily dramatize, because alien technologies are automatically going to be awesome and incomprehensible. (And on the real side, any alien race with the ability to travel interstellar distances to visit Earth is going to be massively more powerful than we are.)

First, I think we’re more likely to end up in a bi- or multi-polar world than we are in a uni-polar world where the United States is not the dominant nation. That’s where movies like District 9, but on a much larger scale, would be interesting—there’s no question that an alien invasion that humanity successfully repulsed would fundamentally reshape our society, likely making the world both more unified across national lines, and more militaristic a la an Ender’s Game scenario. But it would also likely make us cling more fiercely to our humanness in the face of its potential annihilation. Humanity in general and the U.S. in particular would probably change more if we shifted into an uneasy coexistence with an alien society where technological and cultural exchange were possible, but potentially politically taboo.

Second, while the U.S. probably will be less geopolitically powerful in the future, isn’t there an extent to which taking on the underdog role in alien movies sort of absolves us of our role as an invader? Right now, we are fighting two actual asymmetric wars, using technological strategic advantages like predator drones. A movie about a human invasion or colonization of an alien planet might be a more accurate way to process American emotions about our military superiority and the kinds of things we do with it.

And finally, one thing that’s worth mentioning is that in asymmetric wars, the smaller, less conventionally powerful party to the conflict can still find powerful ways to fight back. Whether you’re flying planes into buildings or making very effective use of Improvised Explosive Devices, asymmetric warfare often spurs strategic and technological innovation on both sides of the conflict (see the valorization of hacking in Independence Day). One of the things that’s irritating about so many alien invasion movies is how quickly they’re resolved. Do we really think a society capable of interstellar travel and planet seizure is stupid enough to get beaten up by a bunch of council housing kids in the U.K., as awesome as that scenario is? Or to invade via Los Angeles rather than taking out command centers and nuclear weapons stockpiles first? No, if humanity doesn’t just surrender immediately, this is likely to be a protracted quagmire, the kind of thing that produces actual innovation and strategic shifts. It might involve less of Will Smith punching aliens in the face, or whatever, but it would probably make for better storytelling.

Yglesias is, of course, correct that if Anthony Weiner keeps his head and remembers not to resign, other than the utter humiliation and potential for divorce, he’ll probably be okay! He should probably stop making a spectacle of himself, though, and just admit to sending the damn thing or produce definitive evidence that he didn’t send it. Weiner might also consider renting Primary Colors, which is a better movie about political tradecraft and the emotional equilibrium of a campaign than it will ever get credit for; an agonizing pre-The Good Wife portrait of the damnation of staying in failed marriage for political appearances; and a decent case for plowing cheerfully through disasters of your own making on the road to higher office:

All of which is true even though neither Adrian Lester nor Emma Thompson quite manage to banish their British accents and diction.

It should surprise absolutely no one that a bunch of studies suggest that people my age-ish are thinking seriously about walking away from their cable subscriptions. Obviously, the development and spread of alternative distribution technologies weakened viewers’ attachments to the traditional watch-a-show-in-a-set-time-slot experience, not only by making it easier to watch programs effectively on demand, but by forcing shows that are currently airing to compete against ones that have been off the air for a season or even decades. Certainly, my plan to watch all of Cheers and Roseanne this summer, both of which I missed because we didn’t have a television in the house when I was a kid, means I’m spending much more time on Netflix and much less time with my cable. If having cable wasn’t pretty much an occupational requirement for me, I’d probably walk away from it.

But it’s not just the delivery mechanism for the product that’s a problem: respondents in the survey that article cites say they think cable is a bad value, and with good reason. The bundle of channels that come in a cable package are a truly random spread of things, and while that may seem like it provides a lot of choice, it’s not actually letting me pay directly for the things I’d like to purchase. No one would stand for a model where to buy George R.R. Martin books, I had to guy the whole Left Behind series. The music industry’s evolved to a point where I am no longer required to pay for the skits on hip-hop albums. Cable’s obviously much more dependent than either of those kinds of art on delivery mechanism, but if I were the strong, profitable, critically acclaimed network, I would totally gang up on the dead weight I was packaged with and insist on letting consumers do something like pick ten channels for a set price and then pay a la carte for extra channels. Channels could opt to be available in that initial tranche, or to stay independent like HBO, or participate in both.

I’d pay what I’m paying for cable now if I could just get BBC America, SyFy, USA, TNT, FX, Bravo, AMC, Showtime, HBO, and ESPN. I imagine those networks would be happy to take their greater share of my subscription dollars and use them towards nifty programming. But I don’t have that option. Instead, I’m stuck subsidizing endless spinoffs of Tyler Perry’s House of Payne.

I am loath to give anything Ben Shapiro is involved in an iota of attention, especially something as obvious as a pearl-clutching book about the liberalism of Hollywood. That said, I think some of the quotations that are coming out of interviews he’s going to release to promote the cursed thing are worth highlighting as an example of a using-your-powers-for-good fail. It’s obnoxious to boast that you don’t hire people based on their politics, and worse, it’s un-strategic*:

Friends co-creator Marta Kauffman…acknowledges she “put together a staff of mostly liberal people,” which is another major point of Shapiro’s book: that conservatives aren’t welcome in Hollywood. Maybe that’s because they’re “idiots” and have “medieval minds.” At least that’s what Soap and Golden Girls creator Susan Harris thinks of TV’s conservative critics….Another video has Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky and Hutch — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is “100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth.” Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. “Absolutely,” Goldberg says. When Shapiro tells Fred Pierce, the president of ABC in the 1980s who was instrumental in Disney’s acquisition of ESPN, that “It’s very difficult for people who are politically conservative to break in” to television, he responds: “I can’t argue that point.” Those who don’t lean left, he says, “don’t promote it. It stays underground.”

As Libby Holden says at the end of Primary Colors, “If it’s clean, we win—because our ideas are better.” Deliberately avoiding hiring Republicans and conservatives because they’re “idiots” doesn’t make liberals look tough and decisive: it makes us look like we’re scared of the marketplace of pop cultural ideas. John Ratzenberger’s Republican politics don’t make him too stupid to participate in one of the best comedies about class ever made.

Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think makes a lot more sense to let conservatives into the writers room and the directors chairs and see what they come up with. Walden Media’s Narnia adaptations may have started out as an experiment to see if Christian conservatives could make it in Hollywood, but the movies don’t seem to have converted unbelievers in droves: rather, the movies have been successful because they’re handsome fantasy movies not overly in love with their central Jesus metaphor. There are structural reasons movies about say, practicing abstinence, or maintaining a small business, or getting yourself off welfare aren’t that engaging: they bring characters into less contact and into less conflict with other people because they’re stories about self-reliance (an exception might be stories about vigilante justice). I tend to think the mere presence of conservatives won’t make Hollywood stupid or create particularly conservative products because there are elements of liberal politics that are just more attuned to storytelling. Progressive should be confident, and avoid mugging themselves.

*A side note, I really wonder what kind of sense the people who agreed to be interviewed had of who they were talking to. As with this, James O’Keefe, etc., it seems wise to do your due diligence before you agree to interviews or meetings of any kind.

I’m on the record in support of Isaiah Mustafa’s quest to star in a big-budget Luke Cage movie, so I’m glad to see he’s pressing the case:

It’s not really clear to me what Mustafa’s spin on the character would be, but honestly, as long as the movie is nominally engaged institutional failures in poor neighborhoods and the vacuum that creates for vigilantes or heroes for hire, this seems like a worthwhile project. And if Mustafa can prove there’s an engaged market for black superheroes, all the better.

The itinerary for Michelle Obama’s upcoming trip to California that was distributed to the press today includes this stop:

In response to First Lady Michelle Obama’s Joining Forces military families initiative, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Directors Guild of America, Producers Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild of America West formed a Joining Forces Inter-Guild Task Force to provide creative and production support for Mrs. Obama’s program and to inform and inspire their memberships about the service of America’s military families. The Guilds are hosting the First Lady for a special Joining Forces event to discuss the stories and issues of today’s military families so that their experiences can be integrated into film, television and digital media. The entertainment industry has the opportunity to help Americans learn more about the unique challenges and needs of military families and to showcase the families’ strength, resilience and service to our nation. The Guilds have joined Mrs. Obama’s effort to ensure America’s military families have the support and recognition they have earned.

The First Lady’s support for military families is commendable, but trying to call attention to the work they do on the homefront is hardly a new initiative. Lifetime was surprised when Army Wives, based on a reported book by a military daughter and wife, was a major hit, but the network has tried to keep the show true to the experience of actual military spouses and reaped nice ratings in return. Similarly, The Unit spent a lot of time switching back and forth between deployed soldiers and the families they’d left behind. Of movies about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Harsh Times, The Hurt Locker, In the Valley of Elah, The Dry Landem>, The Messenger, Stop-Loss, Grace is Gone, and Brothers, all are in some substantial way concerned with the experiences of military families, especially after servicemembers return from deployments.

That’s not to say that we can ever give too much credit and honor to the families who support our troops while they’re overseas. I worked very closely with an Air Force wife for a couple of years, and I remain humbled by her strength. But we don’t need Michelle Obama to get involved, or a special task force, to make sure military families are simply represented in the media. I’d hope, instead, that this summit will be an opportunity to think about what kinds of stories we’re telling, and what kinds of military families are underrepresented, especially those of gay soldiers, non-white families, or fathers who have stepped up as caregivers while their wives are deployed. I doubt Gary Trudeau would ever go for this, but I think it would be pretty amazing to see an adaptation of the B.D. arc of the last several years, too. The war doesn’t end when everyone comes home.

One of the popular memes in praise of Game of Thrones is that it’s a fantasy version of The Wire. I don’t think that’s inaccurate, but I think the goal shouldn’t be simply to find the next show that’s like The Wire, but to find ways to incorporate The Wire‘s structural sophistication and political values into lots of shows. To that end, someone should really, really adapt Tamora Pierce’s Provost’s Dog books, the third of which is due out in October.

The Provost’s Dog books are fantasy, set in Tortall, a country Pierce invented in 1983 in her first book, Alanna: The First Adventure. Among the major premises of that world is that individual people have magical abilities and that magical work is part of commerce; that the gods are actively involved in a small number of humans’ lives and that the boundaries between the real world and the realm of the gods can become more porous; and that the dead can communicate with the living.

But despite that setting, this is essentially a structural story. Beka Cooper, the main character, is a young cop (or Dog) in a deeply dysfunctional police force in Corus, Tortall’s capital city. She lives in a rooming house with a bunch of young ne’er-do-wells on the rise in the Court of the Rogue, the city’s criminal hierarchy. She and her partners are essentially an independent task force, senior enough to pursue investigations at their leisure. There’s even an avuncular judge, a gay criminal who’s willing to do deals, a real serial killer, and most importantly, an acknowledgement that government’s abilities are limited, and that sometimes you need extralegal organizations in order to maintain some semblance of order, but those groups are going to be less stable than government agencies.
Read more

Over on BrowBeat, Debra J. Dickerson suspects that Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, a popcorn revenge flick starring Will Smith as an escaped slave out to liberate his wife and punish his former masters, might not do much to change attitudes because white audiences won’t see it, and because turning slavery into a caricature obscures the realities of that hideously peculiar institution:

 

White America loves itself some Nazi-hating, Apartheid bemoaning, and Communist-bashing, but their Confederate forebears? Their slave-raping relatives? Their lynching great-great-grandfathers who bequeathed them land stolen from blacks? Not so much. I doubt that even Tarantino can pull this off (i.e., get enough white butts into theater seats for a success), but my hat’s off to him for trying. Also, I’m having fun writing dialogue for all the Tarantino devotees devising their excuses for skipping this one…

Among all the other things slavery was, it was absurd and it was cruel in ways that could transcend whips and chains. As an armchair slavery historian, those absurdities and bizarre cruelties floor me, and I long for a filmmaker to plumb those depths. I think of stories like these: A kitchen mammy was trying to use coded talk to signal to her son that she knew his sale imminent. But he was the young master’s personal valet. They were basically brothers and the slave loved his life, travelling, whoring, and gambling with his “charge.” He’d forgotten he was slave, but his mother never did. Finally, Mammy literally had to slap her son upside the head with a frying pan to snap him out of his delusions. I hated myself for laughing, but laugh I did.

More than that, though, I wonder if white audiences who do see the movie will be able to reassure themselves that slavery and less violent but no less virulent forms of discrimination aren’t part of the same bloodline, that they’re not the monsters they see on screen. In a world where people who do racist things are desperate to avoid the label, it feels a bit like giving in to narrow the definition of racism to make it so you have to have held a lash to fall under it. In a sense, movies that turn slaveholding into a cartoon are, in their own way, as unproductive as movies where the intervention of a kindly white person makes everyone around them realize the good intentions they just didn’t know they had: the former allows audiences to narrow the definition of prejudice so they can feel it’s gone, while the latter at least acknowledges that maybe it’s still there. It’s harder to yank up the roots of institutions than to take a match to the newsprint comic villains are printed on.

Like all good people, I love me some David Strathiarn, so I’m glad to see him show up in the first of a crop of new television series that acknowledges that having superpowered cops on the force might require more than your standard-issue gruff Sergent (and that’s not even taking into account the challenges of having to relocate them all the time a la The Incredibles):

I doubt Alphas will revolutionize the industry, but I’m so over watching the “shucks I’m special” phase of superhero stories that even if this show is a Heroes knockoff, I’ll probably enjoy it. And I’ll enjoy it even more if both the powers and the conflicts are a more toned-down than they are in your average superhero movie. As Dr. Horrible reminded us, being even a little bit special can make it incredibly difficult to figure out where you fit. There are clear roles for gods in this world, but precious little understanding of the space in between them and humans.