Write what you know?

[Bramblethorn]

Originally Posted by TimothyM

But I would still see Superman making time go backwards by stopping the rotation of Earth, making it rotate the other way, and once his girl was alive again, make Earth rotate the right way and have time go forwards again. Come on, that concept just so FUCKING STUPID, it's unbelievable !

Hm. It's been a while since I saw that movie, but my interpretation was different: he wasn't making time go backwards by reversing the rotation of the Earth, he was going backwards in time (by flying around and around,faster than light-speed) and so the Earth's rotation reversed along with everything else.

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by TimothyM

And yes it's just the kind of mistake that film guys would make - but why wasn't there even ONE person with a bit of scientific sense that told them this was just too far out ? If I could see the absurdity of this as a kid, I'm not going to react any different as an adult, am I ? I'll still feel they are mocking me or being too stupid to deserve me wasting my time on their film.

Well, because they wrote the movie for loosy goosy, fun-loving people, not scientists and literalists, I guess. Being a science dunce, I don't demand the literal out of movies like this. Did the movie make a pile of money? Well, there you go, then. Quite possibly they guessed right in terms of the preponderance of response.

[3113]

Originally Posted by TimothyM

Anybody know who the fools were that came up with that idea and whether they ever got the berating they deserved ??

To the contrary. My husband, an avid Superman fan--and I do mean AVID, has always loved and adored the first Superman movie (his only problems with it were the off-tone, disingenuous comic relief aspects) and thought the ending terrific. Why? Because that is EXACTLY the sort of over-the-top, and yes, ridiculous sort of stunt Superman always pulled in comics, cartoons and television shows. It's what made Superman SUPERman. My husband found it very authentic as an ending to the movie, and had not one complaint.

And, I will add, he's a writer himself (comics, short stories, scripts) and no push-over when it comes to being very critical about writing and movie-making.

There are certain characters--superhereos, legends, etc.--that do impossible and crazy things, and even have absurdness to their universe, make-up and persona. Or did you never read any Superman stories where he turns into something bizarre like a big dragon? Gets a huge head? Battles with a fifth-dimensional being who vanishes when his name is said backwards? Did you never see any of the stories where Krypton had migrating forests (yes, they got up and ran from place to place), birds made of crystal?--and then there was the city of Kandor, shrunk and kept in a big water bottle in Superman's Fortress of Solitude (I don't know what the writers were taking, but I wish I coulda gotten myself some of it). Next to all of this, altering time a bit seems pretty tame. Even rational.

THIS is Superman, and to embrace him is to embrace his surrealism. The times that he's been made hyper-real have also been the times when he hasn't worked--and was usually dull and boring as dishwater--and sales went down into the toilet. The best writers of Superman have been those who have embraced his absurdity and made it work for them (and had skyrocketing sales). Like Grant Morrison (All-Star Superman which does homage to old, absurd Superman stories) and Alan Moore.

I recommend that you read Morrison's excellent history of the superhero genre: "Supergods." It explains far better than I can why "realistic" isn't necessarily better or even good for superheroes.

[TimothyM]

Originally Posted by Bramblethorn

Hm. It's been a while since I saw that movie, but my interpretation was different: he wasn't making time go backwards by reversing the rotation of the Earth, he was going backwards in time (by flying around and around,faster than light-speed) and so the Earth's rotation reversed along with everything else.

Nope, you see Earth slow down, start moving the other way. Then you see the sequence with the girl dying reversing, and once she is back on the road, you see Superman fly the other way and make Earth rotate the right way again and time resume. Or at least that's how I saw it - anyone else have an opinion on this ?

Originally Posted by 3113

To the contrary. My husband, an avid Superman fan--and I do mean AVID, has always loved and adored the first Superman movie (his only problems with it were the off-tone, disingenuous comic relief aspects) and thought the ending terrific. Why? Because that is EXACTLY the sort of over-the-top, and yes, ridiculous sort of stunt Superman always pulled in comics, cartoons and television shows. It's what made Superman SUPERman. My husband found it very authentic as an ending to the movie, and had not one complaint.

Next to all of this, altering time a bit seems pretty tame. Even rational.

I have no problem with Superman altering time - I only have a problem with the way that they had him do it. If he had gone back in time himself and changed events, I would have been happy. I remember one comic where he did that by using an ancient Egyptian artefact (a time glass) and I enjoyed that.

The havoc created by the earth quake instigated by the bad guy was nothing compared to the disasters that would happen when Superman made Earth rotate the other way even for a short time. Or at least that's what I thought as a kid, but maybe I'm wrong. But it does not change the fact that time does not run due to the rotation of the planet. And no Superhero can make it so - and it has nothing to do with whether he is more or less realistic.

Remember, this is about whether writing or showing things that you don't know enough about, will destroy the credibility of the story and thus the enjoyment of the audience. The solution in the movie did that for me. But I accept that I'm probably the only person in the world thinking in this way about Superman I - at least I've never yet met anyone who felt the same way. I won't tell you how that makes me feel.

[Bramblethorn]

Originally Posted by TimothyM

Nope, you see Earth slow down, start moving the other way. Then you see the sequence with the girl dying reversing, and once she is back on the road, you see Superman fly the other way and make Earth rotate the right way again and time resume. Or at least that's how I saw it - anyone else have an opinion on this ?

Clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCsHTNP2MaU

It's pretty clear that time's running backwards, so you'd expect the Earth's spin to reverse along with anything else. (It's spinning faster than it ought, but a realistic speed would make for pretty dull viewing.) I don't see anything in there to suggest that reversing Earth's spin is the cause of everything else - it's not like he's even doing anything that would make it spin backwards, he's just flying laps really really fast.

Originally Posted by TimothyM

The havoc created by the earth quake instigated by the bad guy was nothing compared to the disasters that would happen when Superman made Earth rotate the other way even for a short time. Or at least that's what I thought as a kid, but maybe I'm wrong. But it does not change the fact that time does not run due to the rotation of the planet. And no Superhero can make it so - and it has nothing to do with whether he is more or less realistic.

I'm not arguing with any of that, only with your interpretation that he is making Earth rotate the other way. He's travelling back in time, so you're seeing events running backwards.

[JuneSummers]

Originally Posted by Bramblethorn

He's travelling back in time, so you're seeing events running backwards.

But then shouldn't he be flying backwards?

[TimothyM]

Originally Posted by Bramblethorn

Clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCsHTNP2MaU

It's pretty clear that time's running backwards, so you'd expect the Earth's spin to reverse along with anything else. (It's spinning faster than it ought, but a realistic speed would make for pretty dull viewing.) I don't see anything in there to suggest that reversing Earth's spin is the cause of everything else - it's not like he's even doing anything that would make it spin backwards, he's just flying laps really really fast.

I watched the clip and it is as I expected. If he was just going back in time and the reverse of the spin of Earth was just a visual consequence, why would the spin stop again and then move forward as Superman starts going the other way ?

Sorry I still think my interpretation is correct and thus my objection stands.

[3113]

Originally Posted by TimothyM

I have no problem with Superman altering time - I only have a problem with the way that they had him do it. If he had gone back in time himself and changed events, I would have been happy. I remember one comic where he did that by using an ancient Egyptian artefact (a time glass) and I enjoyed that.

If it bothered you, it bothered you and there's nothing I can do about that. All I can tell you is that you are wrong to think it was a bad ending for the movie. It was dramatic, visually fun and awesome and VERY Superman to have him spin the world backwards. Going back in time without seeing that would not have worked so well.

This is a movie. You have to SHOW something that makes the audience go "Yeah!" and applaud and shout and cheer. As the world wobbles and spins the other way, the audience does that as it demonstrates not only Superman's powers, but how much effort and determination this requires from him. It shows that he is pushing his powers to the limit. And that very visual "metaphor" (which is perhaps the way you should see it rather than literally), allows the audience to understand that Superman is turning back time--and doing it to save the life of someone he cares about.

Totally awesome, visually powerful.

[TimothyM]

Originally Posted by 3113

Totally awesome, visually powerful.

Fair enough, I'm happy for you (and obviously everybody else who watched it) that you felt like that. Wish I did too...

So if we're done with Superman, would anyone else like to come up with examples of things that either disappointed you - or even better made you happy that the author knew what he was doing. I loved the example you gave, Bramblethorn.

Originally Posted by Bramblethorn

once upon a time I read a spy novel (Alistair Maclean, I think) where a scientist started talking about fossils, on an island that already had been established as volcanic. I winced and muttered rude things about the author's lack of research - and then a few pages later the hero mentioned that the scientist had to be a fake, because you don't find fossils in volcanic rocks. I had to mutter an apology to Mr. Maclean!

[sr71plt]

Well beyond his (sensible) response that "he sells books," I can only continue to shake my head at what Tom Clancy doesn't know in his depiction of Jack Ryan--a spy who does it all and is still running ops when he becomes DCI. I was even assigned once to try to help him shift to reality, and his response (again sensibly in terms of the pocketbook) was "why change what sells?"

The flip side is that I applaud what John LeCarre and Graham Greene do (did) demonstrate knowledge about this.

[Bramblethorn]

Originally Posted by JuneSummers

But then shouldn't he be flying backwards?

I'm assuming we're seeing things from his frame of reference, in which he'd still be flying forwards while the rest of the universe is running backwards.

Of course, in that situation we should really see two Supermans flying in opposite directions: the "later" Superman flying forwards (from his perspective), and the "earlier" Superman who hasn't yet reached light-speed, and is now being seen in reverse.

But this isn't exactly hard sci-fi, and I find that scenario a lot less jarring than the idea that he's starting by reversing Earth's rotation.

Originally Posted by TimothyM

I watched the clip and it is as I expected. If he was just going back in time and the reverse of the spin of Earth was just a visual consequence, why would the spin stop again and then move forward as Superman starts going the other way ?

Okay, so how is he making the Earth's spin reverse? He's not pushing on the Earth, he's not even touching it.

[Bramblethorn]

Originally Posted by sr71plt

Well beyond his (sensible) response that "he sells books," I can only continue to shake my head at what Tom Clancy doesn't know in his depiction of Jack Ryan--a spy who does it all and is still running ops when he becomes DCI. I was even assigned once to try to help him shift to reality, and his response (again sensibly in terms of the pocketbook) was "why change what sells?"

The flip side is that I applaud what John LeCarre and Graham Greene do (did) demonstrate knowledge about this.

I missed the middle Jack Ryan stuff; there's a large and unlikely-to-be-filled hole in my reading in between the very early stuff, and the wish-fulfillment where we get to hear about how awesome it'd be to have an unelected President.

I love le Carré and Greene, who have an obvious advantage in writing espionage. I find it interesting that so many great British writers worked as spies - earlier on there was Maugham, and there are a couple of others I can't recall just now. I wonder why there's not a US parallel; I speculate that it might be related to a difference in emphasis between human and electronic intelligence-gathering, but that might be too glib to be true.

[TimothyM]

Originally Posted by Bramblethorn

Okay, so how is he making the Earth's spin reverse? He's not pushing on the Earth, he's not even touching it.

I have no idea - doesn't make much sense to me either. But then the whole thing never did ;-)

[oggbashan]

Originally Posted by Bramblethorn

...

I love le Carré and Greene, who have an obvious advantage in writing espionage. I find it interesting that so many great British writers worked as spies - earlier on there was Maugham, and there are a couple of others I can't recall just now. I wonder why there's not a US parallel; I speculate that it might be related to a difference in emphasis between human and electronic intelligence-gathering, but that might be too glib to be true.

The obvious one you missed is Ian Fleming. Arthur Ransome (Children's stories about the Swallows and Amazons) was very involved in the events of the Russian Revolution. [Note: It is now believed that a British spy actually finally killed Rasputin, after Russian aristocrats bungled it. Rasputin's death was finally achieved by a .455 British Webley.]

Others were John Buchan and Sapper although both were in Military Intelligence on a battle zone rather than traditional spies.

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by oggbashan

The obvious one you missed is Ian Fleming. Arthur Ransome (Children's stories about the Swallows and Amazons) was very involved in the events of the Russian Revolution. [Note: It is now believed that a British spy actually finally killed Rasputin, after Russian aristocrats bungled it. Rasputin's death was finally achieved by a .455 British Webley.]

Others were John Buchan and Sapper although both were in Military Intelligence on a battle zone rather than traditional spies.

No, I left Ian fleming off the list on purpose. The list was about writing spy reality. Ian Fleming, although he amusing plunked in some real stuff (Smerish, for instance, was a real Russian intel organization, with that name) and obviously knew his spy trade, wrote a fantasy spy world.

There are American writers--and quite a few writing close to reality--but not many stars. The star spy writers in the States, even those coming from an intelligence background--have tried to be on the Tom Clancy bandwagon.

It could also be a difference in restrictions on writing. I have some spy stuff out in the mainstream (and quite a bit of it in stories and e-books here and about) but I can't write any of it under my real name.

[NekoParks]

Originally Posted by sr71plt

No, I left Ian fleming off the list on purpose. The list was about writing spy reality. Ian Fleming, although he amusing plunked in some real stuff (Smerish, for instance, was a real Russian intel organization, with that name) and obviously knew his spy trade, wrote a fantasy spy world.

There are American writers--and quite a few writing close to reality--but not many stars. The star spy writers in the States, even those coming from an intelligence background--have tried to be on the Tom Clancy bandwagon.

It could also be a difference in restrictions on writing. I have some spy stuff out in the mainstream (and quite a bit of it in stories and e-books here and about) but I can't write any of it under my real name.

Just curious-- why can't you use your real name? Would you have to have it redacted (is this the correct term?) by CIA or some other government agency? I don't read the spy genre-- except for Greene. I loved Our Man in Havana, but I remember that book as a satire more than anything else. It's been over twenty years since I read it. A friend of mine reads David Stone and really likes him. He's trying to get me to read him.

[Bramblethorn]

Originally Posted by oggbashan

The obvious one you missed is Ian Fleming. Arthur Ransome (Children's stories about the Swallows and Amazons) was very involved in the events of the Russian Revolution. [Note: It is now believed that a British spy actually finally killed Rasputin, after Russian aristocrats bungled it. Rasputin's death was finally achieved by a .455 British Webley.]

Others were John Buchan and Sapper although both were in Military Intelligence on a battle zone rather than traditional spies.

Bah, Monday morning brain. I should've remembered both of those, since Ransome-as-spy shows up in a novel I read recently.

Now I have time to confirm my recollections, add: Malcolm Muggeridge, Roald Dahl, and Noel Coward, in one capacity or another, and possibly Aleister Crowley.

[sr71plt]

Originally Posted by NekoParks

Just curious-- why can't you use your real name? Would you have to have it redacted (is this the correct term?) by CIA or some other government agency? I don't read the spy genre-- except for Greene. I loved Our Man in Havana, but I remember that book as a satire more than anything else. It's been over twenty years since I read it. A friend of mine reads David Stone and really likes him. He's trying to get me to read him.

I can't write anything on anything connected with intelligence or foreign affairs without having it cleared--and then I can't use my real name. That's the contract to continue getting my annuity. In addition, even in pen name, I have to include evidence (in my case news clippings) that show that all of my plot elements were already in the public domain and that I wasn't using still-secret elements. Between 1992 and 1996, I wrote a series of six spy/international crime novels. They weren't cleared for publication until 2001--and then had to be published under a pen name.

So, if you pick up a spy novel by an American author, chances are it's a former U.S. intell officer writing in pen name. I edit about four of those for mainstream publishers myself every year--and assess at least that many for mainstream publishers on whether they are believable spy novels. Unfortunately, I wasn't handed one of Tom Clancy's until after he was popular (but he was never a spy--he was an insurance salesman--and not a particularly successfull one. And his early successes were largely ghosted by others. Jim Sutton of the Naval Institute Press completely reworked Hunt for the Red October and Larry Bond--who does have an intell background under another name--virtually wrote the next two. After that Clancy winged it on his own and I stopped reading them.)

[NekoParks]

Originally Posted by sr71plt

I can't write anything on anything connected with intelligence or foreign affairs without having it cleared--and then I can't use my real name. That's the contract to continue getting my annuity. In addition, even in pen name, I have to include evidence (in my case news clippings) that show that all of my plot elements were already in the public domain and that I wasn't using still-secret elements. Between 1992 and 1996, I wrote a series of six spy/international crime novels. They weren't cleared for publication until 2001--and then had to be published under a pen name.

So, if you pick up a spy novel by an American author, chances are it's a former U.S. intell officer writing in pen name. I edit about four of those for mainstream publishers myself every year--and assess at least that many for mainstream publishers on whether they are believable spy novels. Unfortunately, I wasn't handed one of Tom Clancy's until after he was popular (but he was never a spy--he was an insurance salesman--and not a particularly successfull one. And his early successes were largely ghosted by others. Jim Sutton of the Naval Institute Press completely reworked Hunt for the Red October and Larry Bond--who does have an intell background under another name--virtually wrote the next two. After than Clancy winged it on his own and I stopped reading them.)

Thank you for answering my question so patiently and thoroughly.