Tag Archives: science fiction

Cathy Park Hong’s Dance Dance Revolution

[The language of poets] is vitally metaphorical; that is, it marks the before unapprehended relation of things and perpetuates their apprehension, until the words which represent them, become, through time, signs for portions or classes of thoughts instead of pictures of integral thoughts; and then if no new poets should arise to create afresh the associations which have been thus disorganized, language will be dead to all the nobler purposes of human intercourse.
— Percy Bysshe Shelley, “A Defense of Poetry,” 1820

ddr

The premise of Dance Dance Revolution is marvelously imaginative. The book contains two voices, that of The Historian and that of the Desert Guide. The Guide is a former South Korean dissident who now works as a guide for the St. Petersburg Hotel, in a Las-Vegasy futuristic city called The Desert (the book is set in 2016). She is interviewed by the Historian, a scholar raised in Sierra Leone, and the daughter of a former lover of the Guide’s (who himself was a South Korean doctor and revolutionary). Most of the book is spoken by the Guide in the creole language of the Desert (a mixture of English, French, Spanish, German and Middle English), her stories interspersed with excerpts from the Historian’s memoir and occasionally annotated by the Historian’s commentary.

After I read this book I wanted to walk around shaking it under people’s noses, so they could know about just how nuts it is. I wanted to tell them about what it feels like to read a nonexistent language and understand it. The exercise of decoding the Guide’s creole felt like stretching an aching muscle until it loosened.

Take “Cholla Village of No,” a poem from the third section, “Education During the Year of Falling Hair”

…Progress maif sprinklim fortune
to all o Korea–pave street, condo y petrol
savin Daewoo autos but Progress skip ova mine
villa like a popula lass snubim
drossy fat girl …

… villa a sad sack groanim with bullocks
y huts, villa o exiled outcasts,
prison-loused insurrectas, pickpockets, lady fes
bum-lookas, gaseleo dous’n gun molls

I love how the Guide’s witty simile of the popular girl Progress skipping the “drossy fat girl” of her home village is funnier in Desert Creole than it would have been in Standard English, and how words like “drossy” emerge and make perfect sense.

The Guide has this talent to shape images with her words which she explains is a necessity in her vocation, as in the part from the St. Petersburg Dome series, “Atop the St. Petersburg Dome.” She describes the problems she had in early days, before she learned to use words to make the desolate landscape of the Desert appear beautiful:

When I’se comeupon fo tippame-turban job,
greyhound dogs, spectas en dawn forg,
traipse de trash-boil mountains fo scrap cook pork,
nut’ing left but scrap metal y bitterness…
I de frosh guide maki pennies ‘cos no one ooh-ahhing.

I guided misbegodder fool who vacation
en woebegone ruins. Tu, I mean, you trim.
To flower-arrange words so sand-piss
ash sounds like Melodious plot of
beechen green, try, nary!

This book is deeply concerned with the shiny enamel of language that overlays rotten reality. The challenge and pleasure of reading it is that is isn’t in English. While this may frustrate some readers, I think it adds a dimension of meaning and opens possibilities for expression. Let’s take a look at one my favorite poems from the book, “The Voice.” This poem comes from the section in the book called “Kwangju,” in which the Guide recounts details of her participation in the real 1980 Kwangju rebellion, which was brutally put down by a US-backed Korean government. The Guide had a pirate radio station and her broadcasts rallied revolutionaries against the repressive regime. However, because of her baldness (caused by a rare disease) she was shunned in person by her followers for her ugliness. Her lover was Sah, an old school mate and fellow revolutionary (and was also, remember, the Historian’s father).

THE VOICE

*

… Dim call me voice o Kwangju
uprising’s danseur principal…but samsy, es funny,
I’s voice of Kwangju since dim multitudes who
cryim fo acceptance shun mine presence…

…I’s lose me wig en passion o rally,
mine ball head nekked, mine oysta eyes
filla-up wit wadder, stompin podium,
spout ricanery to rally crowd…

…but crowd dim boo me, t’row rocks a’me,
rocks intended fo plis patos, balfastads, trown a’me!
So I’s paddles tru clog, aways from Sah, run
y hide en me dead fadder’s house, hid like
I’s hidim now en Desert…

*

…Bine day tree o aataclap, heads lop off,
bung it up union leadas ‘rrested, bayoneted,
teacha celled for esypim, pulp students
slung into trucks lika spud sacks…no leaders
left…Sah ask please come back,
we’s need direction…

I slink back, no heraldic air…
…No trumpetim angel me am from ‘im visionaire…
Bitta I’s am, not wantim to fes n’won…
Sotto voice I’s ses to Sah, I’s don want to
fes n’won

…Sah ses kay, you’ll fes n’won b’gib dim
ye voice…pirated a notch en radio
for me…aways from batons, de scrougim
eyes…en me amprage
hole, I’s shotput mine
nihilent gallicry…

Mine voice chattel tru amps, transista radios,
clock radios, furred mined voice batta’d Kwangju
streets, while mine scolded ball head
cloaked deep en broom sweepa closet wit mike…

Hearim me voice en radio, ma che si,
pot-belly war veterans sling up
WWII carbine rifle gainst sifa tanks… Coal miners
donated dim detonates…Housewives fed scabbard insurrectas
wit hot bowls o ttok-guk….

Steetwalkas hear me y march to hospital
to donate blood…haggard doctas say no!
to torn-stock streetwalkas who kem to donate
she blood but dey yell, “Our blood is clean too!”
while beatim dim chest…

Paratroopas clip off amp wires
but Mr. Cha come y rewire
amp back…mine decibel swatted away dragonflies
swarmim round shredded bodies…cut tru smoke
y copsal stink, clear eyesights
sored from peppa gas…lorn in lore o love…

b’all ended…paratroopas find where we be,
surrounded de school basement…try to smoke
us out into rancid air… I’s first to
sneak our back way…paratroopas
rushed into school…

while I’s rush away, t’inkim Sah behind me…

I’splunged inta frail ragged mob, who
gib me a kerosene bomb to hit de school…

…Shroud o gnats in late aftanoon sun,
shroud o mob

A frail body o toweled mob
bull-dozed one afta mob
into mob into   frail body o
toweled mob    dove sta memora

I trew

…a kerosene bomb, it twine en air
a kerosene bomb roll, it twine en air,
did not soar as I’s plan but float, but before plummet  before
spume gown o powda
I replay  dat arc intra air, tortuously
twist as I’s look befo fleeing,
will it hit its target is Sah out
is Sah out  is he
y replay.

Our first task is to acclimate ourselves to the grammar and vocabulary of the Guide’s creole: dim for them, I’s for I am and I did

and we grow accustomed to abbreviations like “’rrested” for “arrested.”
A familiarity with the Romance languages helps (also, Middle English and German) – we must recognize that “y” means “and” and that a word like “espyim” means “to spy” (which you might not catch if you weren’t used to the tendency of English words that begin with “s” to begin with “e” in languages like French and Spanish).

We also have to start relying on our mental ear more; you have to actually hear the words “you’ll fes n’won b’gib dim / ye voice” before it resembles “you’ll face no one but give them / your voice” (more on hearing in a second).

That’s the basic work it takes to decipher the poetry in this book; but once it’s done, a closer reading reveals how Desert Creole reflects the culture and society in which it has evolved.

Take the two-word line “nihilent gallicry” where we have an adjective and noun composed from the following words and their connotations (maybe this is going out a limb… tell me what you think though):

nihilist – meaninglessness and futility

violent – destruction and bloodshed

gallic – k, I think, French, and therefore a reminder of the connection between linguistic and social upheaval plus also the French Revolution

cry – which, following the title, expresses the gist of this poem; the power of vocalization; not just of verbalization, not just the presence of meaning by way of words but the act of enunciating it. Language in this book is not just words but speech, and that’s what I meant when I mentioned the importance of hearing, which is that, for a book of poetry (as in a bunch pages that you read silently) this book makes drastically clear the importance of spoken language as a thing that exists independently of writing. It’s written in a creole that has no standard form and changes from moment to moment as people speak it, as the guide.

The poem “The Voice” moves me because of its dramatic pacing and the variation between the Guide’s dramatic, comic voice, and the her desperate and suspenseful tone toward the very end. I chose to use this poem as an example because I think it demonstrates one my favorite attributes of Dance Dance Revolution, which is that it is crammed with raw emotion and political outrage without “limiting itself to statement” (Henriksen).

Back to the poem and specifics, though. The contrast between the piling up of revolutionaries – the coal miner, the housewife, the streetwalker – the building of tension and violence – with the moment of personal loss and doubt when the Guide realizes she might have thrown the kerosene bomb into the building her lover still occupied. The Guide’s emotion, at the end, does not have to do with the failure of revolutions or the oppression of regimes, but the fear of doing the worst thing imaginable, which is hurting someone you love. And it works well because that’s what’s hard about having ideals; we are driven ultimately by personal motives, mostly, right? (Honest question, though… I’m not sure where I’m going with that).

I wanted the preceding discussion to explain why I think Hong’s invented creole is brilliant. Given what we know about how linguistic control can be a means of social control and oppression, her method makes perfect sense. If you’re going to write a book about revolutions, the language better be revolutionary. But in particular, if you’re going to write a book of poetry about revolutions, the language better be revolutionary, down at the level of grammar and vocabulary and not just in content, because poetry is the language of language, if  you see what I mean, it’s the place we examine how we use language and how it might be used and what it should look like and sound like (I’m thinking about Wordsworth here).

Something we can learn from Hong is how to make effective use of dialogic structures (a term I am appropriating from some lit theory I picked up in class and hopefully am using acceptably, because it seems to fit well here). What I mean is, Dance Dance Revolution is a polyphonic book; it is a conversation. Most of the book is made of the Guide’s speaking shaped into poem form. These poems are annotated in Standard English and interspersed with prose excerpts from the Historian’s memoir. An intermission in the middle of the book gives us a portrait of the Desert in the voice of a third and first person narrator, sometimes fragmented:

Blood tone   flood tone
woods over-swarmed with description
starless    riotous    woods

This part of the book contains a Desert almanac and a haunting portrait of New Town, the slum to which the revolutionaries of the failed Dance Dance Revolution were banished. The sudden shift from the voices of the book’s two principal characters to the unknown voice of a poet emphasizes the question: what form of language do we award the title poetry, that is to say, which ought we to privilege as the Art? The one closest to everyday speech? The most erudite? The most adventurous?

The voices in the book critique one another. The Guide’s eclectic and leaky pidgin-poems contrasts with the Historian’s precise prose, and this comparison forms an analog to the contrast between their histories. In one memoir clip, the Historian describes her childhood:

Despite the rumblings of civil war in Freetown, Sierra Leone, I spent most of my childhood in quiet solitude. I owned dozens of cookie tins filled with crayons and while my days drawing pictures in a sitting room with egg-white walls and a slowly rotating ceiling fan. I was a peaceful, oblivious child with only one true anxiety: the burden of consciousness. I had difficulty understanding why I—my mind, my consciousness—was in one body and not another. Did others posses the same kind of command and awareness over themselves? Were they just chattering machines without the gift of inner thought? I concluded that consciousness was a cursed, supernatural power that only I possessed and I had to keep it a secret. I attended an international primary school and I remember watching a short film about an animated mole with my class. The film reel stuttered and my classmate, Michel, whispered to me: “I will tell you a secret if you tell me a secret.” He quickly whicpsered his and then asked for mine. In my most solemn tone, I replied, “I can’t. It’s too big a secret. I can’t even begin to tell you.”

The Historian, then, is a complement to the Guide. Where as the Guide grew up amidst violence and later learned to create images with words, the Guide was raised in an imaginary world, a world where her consciousness and her thoughts were the only real things – so real that they could not be articulated. Am I going in circles here? It’s just that the premise here depicts exactly the problem I spend my days running around, which is how to not destroy reality by describing it.

Dance Dance Revolution examines the effects of globalization on authentic culture and language and thus brings in to question what authenticity even means. In the St. Petersburg Hotel series at the beginning of the book, the Guide gives the Historian a tour of the hotel (all the hotels in The Desert are modeled after real cities). In the part entitled “Preparation for winter in the St. Petersburg Arboretum”, the Guide instructs the Historian to:

Now samsy, grab un gun. BB down de riving ravens,
de vermin fatted jays, y jade headed mallards who wit
insolence nest en botany or out #3 prize-winnim plants,
who dare nest en heart o Russkies sculpt en shrubbery.

Thus we have orders for violence in order to maintain the controlled simulation of a simulation; the mimcry of a Russian arboretum which is itself a mask of nature. The question that begins to arise is, what does simulation of reality do to reality itself (Baudrillard)?

A city like The Desert arises from a completely globalized world, one in which the difference between original and reproduction has ceased to exist or become irrelevant.

So the troubling question posed by book is, if we cannot trust in our allegiance to the truth (authenticity, identity, the aura of the original, roots, axioms of conscience), where does that leave us? The Historian says in her Foreward that in the Desert, “new faces pour in and civilian accents morph so quickly that their accents betray who they talked to that day rather than their cultural roots.” In word of such ephemeral identity, where every moment is relative to the next and nothing sustains, how is it possible to have a soul? And indeed, the Guide is troubled by questions of her own duplicity; descendant from a line of informants and traitors, she has gone from being a leader of a revolution to a yes-woman herself, selling tips about dissidents to Desert officials to shore-up her retirement fund.

I think if there’s hope in this book it’s the mission that forms its premise: the Historian’s voyage to meet the Guide. We never learn exactly what motivates her interview with the Guide but presumably it has to do with both her position as a researcher and her personal connection to the Guide through her father. The book itself is an act of truth-seeking, of root-finding. It illuminates both the history of a whole society and the story of one individual: the Historian finds out what actually happened. In that sense, it’s about how revolutions die but also about how they persist.

Cathy Park Hong is the author of two other books, Translating Mo’um and Engine Empire, the latter of which I will definitely write about some time because it’s also excellent (I haven’t read the former, though I’d like to of course). Read this interview with her on Poets & Writers, where she talks about the relationship politics and poetry, read it now.

Also, I am categorizing this post under both poetry and science fiction, because it is sort of science-fictional. think the preferred term would be “speculative poetry,” but I want to associate Hong’s work with science fiction in order to pursue my aim of redefining what we think science fiction is and what it should do.

Elysium: “technology as mystification”

Image

Spoiler Alert. Not that the ending it isn’t totally predictable anyway.

The plot: In the near future, Earth’s ecosystems have been destroyed by industrial development and all its habitants live in slums. All the rich people live in a luxury space colony orbiting the planet. On this colony everyone has access to complete healthcare by means of these magic-heal-all pods which remove all the illness in their body through some Very Advanced Technology. All the rich people are white and speak French, and all the poor people (who live on Earth) are not-white and speak Spanish. Except Matt Damon, who plays the protagonist, Max. Max is in love with his childhood sweetheart,  Frey, who’s a nurse with a sick daughter. He gets exposed to a lethal dose of radiation in a work accident, and decides to risk everything in order to get to Elysium and its magical healing machines. A bunch of stuff happens, he gets to Elysium, fails to heal himself but does cure Frey’s daughter, hacks the space-colony’s computer mainframe, changes the piece of code that classifies all citizens of earth as “illegal” on Elysium, and dies. Poof! All of Earth’s citizens are now legal, and thus entitled the automated healthcare system on Elysium, which promptly deploys medical care to the (entire?) planet. So everyone is happy and everything is fine now? Right? I mean, don’t worry about entrenched racism or irreparable ecological damage or anything guys – the poor people now have shiny smooth aspirin-like ships full of medicine, so it’s all good. Thanks, Matt!

Ok. So.

If you’re going to posit a future society in which all of Earth is a slum and all the rich people live on a off-world space colony orbiting the planet, and you’re going to make this story reflect current disparities between the first and the third world, that is, you’re going to make all the poor people in this posited society be brown, Spanish-speaking folk, and all the rich people be white, English/French speaking-folk,

then you are telling, like, a story about, as I’ve said, racism, among other problems. Right?

So. Good. It’s good to tell stories about racism, to remind ourselves that it’s a problem, that it exists now and probably will continue to exist in the future and that it is bad and that we should combat it.

So, makers-of-Elysium, HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO IGNORE THAT PART OF THE STORY?

Like. Seriously. In this movie, EVERYTHING that is wrong with this future world is fixed, at the end, by a character editing a line of computer code to change the classification of residents of Earth from “illegal” to “legal.”

Friends. It’s a bit more complicated than that.

If you want to defeat institutionalized racism and economic injustice, if you want to tear down society and rebuild it as a more just, moral and generally better place to live, IT TAKES A LITTLE MORE THAN REWRITING A FEW EFFING LINES OF CODE SWEETHEARTS. I really wish it were that simple, but it isn’t.

I know that’s obvious. You’re like, Sally, calm down, it’s a Hollywood movie, it’s not meant to be realistic. The reason I found this movie so irritating is because it reflected a trend in pop science fiction that I find morally troublesome. It’s something that science fiction writer and critic Joanna Russ has called “technology as mystification.” By this she means a simplistic yet schizophrenic attitude about technology which posits that it is an autonomous force for good or evil, that it in a sense has agency of its own.

The problem with this attitude is that, while it’s all very fun for us to sit around and talk about “the role of technology in human society” and to think about how it shapes us, such discussions tend to occlude the actual issue at stake, in this case, namely, the fact that burdens and consequences of environmental destruction are now and will continue to fall more heavily on the poor, and that the poor are now and will continue to be non-white people.

To posit such a convenient solution to this injustice as the simple act of editing  a line of code is to suggest that the injustice itself was merely the result of a line of code. The bad guys in Elysium are the evil people who decided created the space station and decided that only certain people could go there, but the apparently they have no power or consequence beyond their ability to manipulate technology – so in a sense it is technology that is the bad guy. At the same time, all it takes for the Earth and its people to be saved is the arrival of Elysium’s magical healthcare ships at the movie’s end – never mind the fact that the planet is still in shambles. So technology is the ultimate good guy too.

This contrast is why “schizophrenic” is an appropriate term to describe the attitude Elysium and other recent pop science fiction takes toward technology. Technology is either a god or demon, and though the movie superficially attributes agency to human beings, at the end of the day, it is more interested in glitzy tools and sexy computers. It is more interested in hysterically interrogating the meaning of these technological objects than on honestly inspecting the human society itself. The social message of the film is just some pretty wrapping paper used to cover up a shallow, materially-obsessed fantasy about the importance of having stuff.

Also, seriously, if you’re going to make a futuristic allegory about illegal immigration, don’t make the protagonist white. I mean, just, come on.

Pitch Black

Last night Dad and I watched Pitch Black together.

 Image

I first watched this movie I think maybe when I was 13 or 14 and loved it. Now, of course, equipped with my newfound English major powers of analysis, I see its flaws. First, a brief summary.

The movie begins in space. A ship carrying passengers and a convict, all in cryo-sleep, is hit by some rock fragments, which penetrate the hull, kill the ship’s captain and cause the surviving crew to awake. Fry (Radha Mitchell) takes command of the ship as it crash-lands on a planet in a three-start system where the sun never sets. The crew sets about dealing with how to find water and deal with the escaped prisoner Riddick (Vin Diesel). Spoilers ahead. If you’ve read Asimov’s Nightfall, it’s kind of that scenario. An eclipse occurs, and the planet experience its first nighttime in twenty-two years. The planet’s underground inhabitants, vicious batty-pterodactyl things who might be distantly related to Alien’s alien, emerge from their caverns and start killing off crew members one by one (classic pack-of-teens-lost-in-the-woods style). The only thing our humans have going for them is that the creatures are so sensitive to light that they will can be warded off with even a puny flashlight. Unfortunately for our crew, in order to get off the planet they need to make a trek through the planet’s rough Mad Max-like terrain in order to bring some fuel cells from their wrecked ship to the skiff they have found left behind by the previous humans on the planet (a band of geologists killed by the creatures years ago).

So actually, there was one flaw I didn’t need to go to college to pick up on – the gigantic glaring question that I think occurs to even the least critical viewer of the film would be, how the hell does a light-allergic species evolve on a planet that only experiences night once every 22 years? And if they devour every living thing on the planet every time an eclipse happens, what do they eat the next time around, if there doesn’t happen to be a band of space travelers conveniently stranded for them? And why are there so many? But whatever. Other critics have plenty to say about the movie’s other flaws – namely unoriginal and formulaic plot being the main one – and it’s virtues – namely is pretty sweet cinematography and glitzy effects. Oh yeah, and Riddick’s cool because his eyes are shiny and he’s sort of a murderer but a nice guy deep down. Yeah. Sure. I’m not going to repeat here what’s been said, but you can google the reviews if you are interested (ok fine, I’ll do the work, here’s Roger Ebert). I’ll talk about some things about the movie that aren’t about the obvious “it’s to obvious” problem. Let’s talk about Jack (Rhiana Griffith). When I first saw this movie, I really liked Jack. I still like Jack, I think. She is not a character other reviewers seem to have paid much attention to, which is strange to me because I feel like she’s what gives it one of its few original moments. I mean, not that original, but, well, judge for yourself.

Here’s what happens: The motley band of travelers is making their way through the darkened landscape of the planet in a somewhat suicidal attempt to get back to their escape ship with some salvaged energy cells. In order to protect themselves from the monsters, the set out decked out with all the light-emitting equipment the could gather, but as we may expect things have gone sour and they find themselves huddled around only a few flickering torches hacked together from bottles of liquor and rag cloth. They argue about what to do: Fry wants to go back, Johns (Cole Hauser) wants to continue. Riddick speaks up: “We can’t go back, not now that they have our scent. Not with the girl bleeding and all.” And Fry (who is ostensibly the only female present) says, “What the hell are you talking about? I’m not cut,” and Riddick says “Not her. Her.” And looks at Jack. And that’s how we find out that Jack is a girl (or rather, has just become a woman). (So, these quotes aren’t exact because I’m doing them from memory).

Ok, maybe it’s too cute, but I liked this moment. Sort of. I kind of take issue with the fact that Jack immediately goes all ewey and kind of cries once she’s discovered, but then again it’s not as though she was being totally stone-faced while she was a boy — I think we can chalk her noodliness up to the fact that she’s the kid, not the that she’s the girl. Am I being too much of a sophomore in seeing something sort of interesting about gender here (hopefully not seeing as I’m about to be senior)? I mean can’t we appreciate that this movie acknowledges a major practical problem that gets ignored in most action/thriller plots for the sake of convenience? I mean, forget water, guns, torches or medicine – what the hell do our badass science fiction heroines do without tampons? I suppose they’re all on continuous birth control (either they all hide an endless supply of pills in their underwear or have really long-term hormone implants) or maybe they just decided to put their careers first and have their ovaries removed. Or something else. Presumably if we can assume cryogenics and interstellar travel we can assume a solution to menstruation. But whatever. It’s not really the main point.

Jack explains her ruse saying “I just thought it would be better if people took me for a guy, that they would just leave me alone.” This kid knows what the world is like. And I think Pitch Black deserves credit in not only doing what is predecessor Alien did – maintaining the lead female character Fry as merely that, a leader and not an erotic ornament – but also that it doesn’t try to tell us that in the future women are captains so gender is not an issue anymore (not that Alien did do that either).

Perhaps I am reading far too much in to what was really just a melodramatic gimmick, but I want to connect this to my belief that how science fiction films, or action-oriented films in general, build female characters is a whole messy problem. This is going to be kind of a roundabout argument, but I promise you I will get back to Pitch Black and the my point about Jack.

Thinking about women characters in science fiction is hard because we all want to see better ones, but it’s hard to say what “better” is. It isn’t just a matter of “strong” versus “weak” females or “sexy” versus “butch.” It is not a black-and-white “this movie perpetuates a patriarchal and misogynistic culture” and “this movie affirms an emancipatory and egalitarian culture,” because we are not even in agreement about what is emancipatory for women and what is not in term of their physical appearance and character disposition. Probably the two most iconic badass females in science fiction film are Alien’s Ripley and Terminator’s Sarah Connor. Neither of them are conventionally beautiful, they sweat a lot and their hair is gets messed up, or shaved off. So the best female action characters are the unsexy ones who act like (male) soldiers? Well, that might be problematic too. And anyway, Ripley and Sarah are totally sexy: type in “Ripley alien” to Google and the first autofill option is “Ripley alien underwear”. And Sarah Connor wear no bra and rocks at it.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Ripley and Sarah. I am just always on the lookout for female characters to love who aren’t like them. In Pitch Black, Fry is more or less a bleached photocopy of either of the two. She’s slightly prettier, fairly badass, and less interesting. She suffers from guilt for having nearly sacrificed her companions in order to save herself at the beginning of the film (she was stopped from doing this not by her conscious but by the ship’s captain who dies in the first few minutes), so at the end she has to die saving Riddick as redemption. That’s ok I guess. But she’s really pretty boring.

Jack, though. Is Jack interesting? We never get her backstory, but she’s obviously a runaway. Judging from the fact that she chose to disguise herself as a boy as protection we can guess her some things about her history. I don’t know if it’s just because I first saw Pitch Black in my early teens when I myself was still pretty uncomfortable with the newfound realization that my body was an erotic object that could garner unwanted attention, not to mention a good deal of discomfort and even shame about what at the time I perceived as the truly disgusting fact of menstruation (and the indignation I felt at having suddenly to deal with it), but the moment when we find out that she’s a girl because Riddick can tell she’s on her period tapped in to every confused teenage anxiety I had about being female. At the time I felt that my period was a fucking inconvenience, I was afraid of my body as far as it speaks for me in ways I don’t intend, and as much as I liked being a girl, sometimes I really did wish I could pass for a guy for the sake of being left alone (namely, while traveling in strange places, which is what Jack was doing). And, frankly, I occasionally still feel this way today, though not as much.

So… what I’m saying is that while Pitch Black is mostly just pot-boiler action sf, it (perhaps unintentionally) taps in gender anxiety differently than the films off of which it is based. And I kind of think we need more of this approach, this presentation not of women who already have “overcome” or “surpassed” their femaleness, not of “strong female characters” but of ones who, like Jack, portray something that’s true but hard to communicate without getting heavy-handed, spectacular or self-righteous: that it is fucking hard not just to be a girl, but to become a girl, to transition from that bizarre and happy state of genderlessness that is childhood to that moment that you realize that no matter how you think of yourself (as a person who likes to skip rocks, as an adventurer, as an independent individual), your body will behave like a female and others will treat you that way. And that’s what gender studies in film in literature is kind of about right? What we are is not who we are. This is the problem surrounding Ripley and Sarah. In their worlds, they are badass women, they are in charge of their sexuality, they are in control. But as constructs of mainstream popular media, they are still subject the patriarchal tastes and attitudes of their audience. And so we can’t decide whether they own their sexiness or whether it’s a concession to the box office. And that’s a problem, or a tension, we don’t talk about enough. But with Jack, the tension is explicit right off the bat. For Jack, there was no possibility of owning her sexiness, her femininity was no other thing but a threat, and being a women is definitely bad. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. Let’s not pretend that is going to change anytime soon – this is set in the future, after all.