One of my earliest memories is of standing with my father after dark on the front lawn of our home in Highland Park, Los Angeles. He pointed at the moon and told me, "There are men up there right now."

The Apollo 11 mission reached the lunar surface on my mother's 24th birthday. I was still weeks shy of my second birthday, so I find it doubtful that this memory (if, indeed, it isn't wholly apocryphal) comes from that first landing. Maybe it was Apollo 12 later that year, or Apollo 14 in 1971 (though that date seems too late). Doesn't matter. I remember feeling a childish awe that people had flown to that distant bright sphere.

curiosityshadow.jpg No humans landed on Mars last night, just a robotic rover, but the wonder and awe I felt were perhaps even greater than on that Vietnam-era night. Because, in a sense, we all traveled along with Curiosity on its thrilling, harrowing, lonely plunge to the Martian surface. NASA brilliantly sucked us into the narrative by walking us through its "7 Minutes of Terror" in advance, then let us hang out with the gang in mission control at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to live those seven minutes with them. Yes, this is something like the seventh time that humans have landed devices successfully on Mars, but never before have we observers all been able to experience the event with such immediacy, unmediated by professional reporters. I'm not ashamed to say that I burst into tears when Curiosity was reported to have landed safely, and I know from the conversation taking place on Twitter that I was far from the only one who did.

Kind of a silly reaction to the fact that we humans (or some of our smartest representatives) had fired a hunk of metal and glass through space to a soft landing on a neighboring ball of rock, right? Not really. Those first couple of pictures, featuring the wheel or shadow of a human-made object on Mars made clear that, even if most of us had long since come to terms with the fact that we would never set foot on the Red Planet ourselves, an emissary could still go there for us and make its first task upon arrival to send us back photos. And that was almost as wondrous as being there.


Crossposted from Inhuman Swill
shunn: (Elder Shunn)
Mitt Romney is used to being called "President Romney." From 1986 until 1994, he served as what's called a stake president in the LDS Church. A stake president is the lay ecclesiastical leader who oversees a local group of Mormon congregations (wards) and their bishops. Mitt led the Boston Stake, comprising about 4,000 Mormons at the time, all of whom would properly have referred to him as "President Romney" and addressed him as "President." Not only that, but once released from the calling he would still have been called "President" by his flock, as a courtesy, in recognition of his past service. Once a president, always a president.

(One wonders whether, once Mitt became governor of Massachusetts, church members started addressing him as "Governor" or continued addressing him as "President." Hmm. I could see it going either way.)

mittbot.jpg I don't want to sound prejudiced, but that past as part of the LDS hierarchy is one of the reasons I instinctively dislike Mitt Romney. I don't know if it's chicken or egg, but there's a certain demeanor that men at the level of stake president and above seem to bring to the calling. Not all of them, but certainly a majority of them. There's a bland kind of handsomeness. There's an aura of being not quite present, of being above everything and everyone around them. There's a core of certainty to everything they say, backed up as it is by the full weight of a highly centralized doctrinal structure. Their delivery is usually grave, as if they're delivering difficult news straight from the mouth of God himself, except when there's a forced, cheesy jokiness that seems calculated to soften the rest of this authoritarian, patriarchal baggage. And there is never, ever a sense of the real person underneath. The role inhabits the man, not vice versa.

The best way to get a look at the parade of blandness that is the LDS leadership is to tune in to a televised General Conference in early April or October. If you don't see a marked similarity between the way Mitt Romney comes across and the way most of the church leaders present themselves as they address the worldwide membership of the Church—well, let's just say I'll be surprised. There's a good reason Mitt comes off as such a robot to so many people. The Sanctibot-1850 is a proud Mormon tradition.

Like I say, not all Mormon leaders come across that way. I've known many of them, particularly down at the lowly level of ward bishop, who were warm and understanding and human—and also obviously not destined to rise far in the Church ranks. But on those occasions that I've met one-on-one, behind closed doors, with the Mitt-style leaders, I've always come away intimidated and not a little terrified by way they seem to channel the cold, wrathful, unshakable judgment of God in the counsel and censure they calmly and coolly offer. These are not men you negotiate with. These are men who tell you how it is, and how it's going to be.

Now that Mitt has won the Michigan primary and is that much closer to capturing the Republican nomination, I'm that much more terrified of a masked man like that, already accustomed to the title of president and with full confidence in the correctness of his calling, occupying the Oval Office.


Crossposted from Inhuman Swill
The ninth episode of ShunnCast is now available to subscribers. Or, to readers of this blog, directly from this URL:

http://www.shunn.net/podcast?id=9

The download is 12.9 Mb.
It seems I will be interviewed this weekend by BBC World Service Radio for a feature story on the play "Heddatron," to air Monday or Tuesday. Loyal readers will recall that I wrote a not entirely complimentary review of said play a few days back for Science Fiction Weekly at SciFi.com. It seems this is what attracted the Beeb's attention.

Along those lines, does anyone out there know offhand of 20th century plays besides R.U.R. that feature robots? Time to do a little cramming.

I will, of course, keep you abreast of all the details. Stiff upper lip and all that. What, ho!
As promised last week, my review of Heddatron is now live at SciFi.com:

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/screen/sfw12238.html

Despite the review, an evening spent at Heddatron is not without its compensations (one of the chief being the theater's proximity to Lupe's East L.A. Kitchen, which might be the city's best little Mexican joint). Despite my dissatisfaction, I smiled and laughed all the way through, and Laura thoroughly enjoyed the show.

But those damn robots! Agh!
Tonight Laura and I go to see Heddatron at HERE. It's more or less "Hedda Gabler" with robots. Real robots. Live on stage.

Well, not live robots, of course, but live robots, you see:

Les Freres Corbusier continues its irreverent massacre of historical icons and academic esoterica by taking on famed playwright Henrik Ibsen, the well-made play, and contemporary issues in robotics. Ibsen is thwarted by August Strindberg and his kitchen slut throughout his fevered struggle to write the great feminist drama, Hedda Gabler, while a contemporary housewife in Michigan is abducted by robots and forced to perform Ibsen's masterpiece over and over again...

With real functioning robots portraying half of the parts, alongside humans who will play the other half, Heddatron will be one of the first theatrical productions to use functional robots as actors. Employing robotic automation and text-to-speech software, humans will perform opposite a hunky Lovborg-bot, a clunky Tessman-bot, as well as blinking, smoking, and whirring co-stars who portray Judge Brack, Aunt Julie, and the rest of Ibsen's menagerie.
You might have caught the New York Times story about the show last week. The robots of Heddatron have been created specifically for this production by Botmatrix, which sounds like a whole collective of Susan Calvins.

The play's director, Alex Timbers, says: "These girls [from Botmatrix] think robots get a bad rap in pop culture. And that caused me to reassess how we were depicting them. There was an earlier draft in which Ibsen constructed robots to help him kill young women, and during a reading I felt a little embarrassed and ashamed to look over at [the roboticists] and see their reactions. The robots have taken on a much more positive force in the show."

Too bad Asimov didn't live to see this. I can't wait.

Watch for my review of Heddatron next week in Science Fiction Weekly.

April 2014

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
1314 1516 171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 14th, 2025 10:09 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios