2016 Recommended Books List

2016 has been a pretty full year for me, and I suspect for everyone else, too. We had an election this year, and that was certainly a wild ride from start to finish. A lot happened in the world. We lost some pretty amazing people. A lot happened in my life, too, although I'd hope those events were more positive than what happened in the world and the U.S. at large.

I read quite a few books this year, in between school and writing and spending time with family. A lot of those books were amazing, the type of books that take hold of something in your soul. Looking back at the list, it's an odd combination of non-fiction and sci-fi/fantasy, with one lone exception. These are all books that deeply appealed to me in some way, whether that was the premise or the characters or the overall theme of the book. I would highly recommend them all.

***

1. Under a Painted Sky by Stacey Lee

Summary: Missouri, 1849: Samantha dreams of moving back to New York to be a professional musician--not an easy thing if you're a girl, and harder still if you're Chinese. But a tragic accident dashes any hopes of fulfilling her dream, and instead, leaves her fearing for her life.
With the help of a runaway slave named Annamae, Samantha flees town for the unknown frontier. But life on the Oregon Trail is unsafe for two girls, so they disguise themselves as Sammy and Andy, two boys headed for the California gold rush.

Sammy and Andy forge a powerful bond as they each search for a link to their past, and struggle to avoid any unwanted attention. But when they cross paths with a band of cowboys, the light-hearted troupe turn out to be unexpected allies. With the law closing in on them and new setbacks coming each day, the girls quickly learn that there are not many places to hide on the open trail.

I read this book way back in February, and I absolutely adored it. In fact, it's pretty much the book that got me started doing book reviews on this blog. Once I read this book, I felt the need to share it with as many people as I possibly could. I've written a much longer review already, but to sum it up: this is a well-written book with amazing characters and an incredibly nuanced view of the Old West. I highly, highly recommend it. 

2. Starflight by Melissa Landers
Summary: Solara Brooks needs a fresh start, someplace where nobody cares about the engine grease beneath her fingernails or the felony tattoos across her knuckles. The outer realm may be lawless, but it's not like the law has ever been on her side. Still, off-world travel doesn't come cheap; Solara is left with no choice but to indenture herself in exchange for passage to the outer realm. She just wishes it could have been to anyone besides Doran Spaulding, the rich, pretty-boy quarterback who made her life miserable in school.

The tables suddenly turn when Doran is framed for conspiracy on Earth, and Solara cons him into playing the role of her servant on board the Banshee, a ship manned by an eccentric crew with their own secrets. Given the price on both Doran and Solara's heads, it may just be the safest place in the universe. But when the Banshee's dangerous enemies catch up with them, Solara and Doran must come together to protect the ship that has become their home-and the eccentric crew that feels like family.

I read this book in about half a day. It's a fun, fast-moving little sci-fi story with fun characters and a plot that features plenty of twists and turns. It's not the best book I've ever read; and it's not deep and thought-provoking like Under a Painted Sky. But it's a book I greatly enjoyed, and it's the type of fun, inoffensive sci-fi fluff I like to read when my brain needs a break and I don't want to have to critique something too hard.

3. Women Heroes of World War II by Kathryn J. Atwood
Summary: Noor Inayat Khan was the first female radio operator sent into occupied France and transferred crucial messages. Johtje Vos, a Dutch housewife, hid Jews in her home and repeatedly outsmarted the Gestapo. Law student Hannie Schaft became involved in the most dangerous resistance work--sabotage, weapons transference, and assassinations. In these pages, young readers will meet these and many other similarly courageous women and girls who risked their lives to help defeat the Nazis.
Twenty-six engaging and suspense-filled stories unfold from across Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Denmark, Great Britain, and the United States, providing an inspiring reminder of women and girls’ refusal to sit on the sidelines around the world and throughout history.

I first encountered this book while volunteering at my local library. It seemed like the type of book I would like, so I checked it out and started reading. And just as I'd suspected, I loved it. This book tells the story of a variety of female heroes during World War II, most of whom are rarely taught about elsewhere. It doesn't restrict itself to any one type of hero, either. Included are women who fought the Nazis nonviolently, like Sophie Scholl and Johtie Vos, and much more literal fighters like Hannie Schaft. Women of color are included in the stories of Noor Inayat Khan and Josephine Baker. The faith and religon that inspired many of these women, such as Corrie ten Boom, isn't overlooked. Each story is concise yet important. This book really is an important reminder of women who were not afraid to do what they knew was right, even in the face of death.

4. Failures of the Presidents by Thomas J. Craughwell and M. William Phelps
Summary: In an effort to put an end to Britain and France’s policy of seizing American ships and sailors, Thomas Jefferson calls for an embargo. The result: 30,000 soldiers out of work, mercantile families bankrupted, and a nationwide economic depression.

In an effort to install a capitalist government in the Middle East, stabilize the region, and protect America from a possible Iraqi terrorist assault using weapons of mass destruction, George W. Bush orders the invasion of Iraq. The result: More than 4,000 American soldiers and personnel dead; estimated hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead; hundreds of billions of dollars spent; the torture of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction leave American global credibility in tatters.

What were they thinking?

One of my favorite genres of history, so to speak, is the "American history they didn't teach you in school" genre. This book appeals very heavily to that interest of mine, as it not only explores little-known anecdotes from history, but calls attention to the flaws of most U.S. presidents. It's a fairly unbiased book that provides cultural and historical context for the presidents' various decisions, without absolving them of the consequences. This is the kind of history I very much appreciate.

5. On Basilisk Station by David Weber
Summary: Having made him look a fool, she's been exiled to Basilisk Station in disgrace and set up for ruin by a superior who hates her. Her demoralized crew blames her for their ship's humiliating posting to an out-of-the-way picket station. The aborigines of the system's only habitable planet are smoking homicide-inducing hallucinogens. Parliament isn't sure it wants to keep the place; the major local industry is smuggling; the merchant cartels want her head; the star-conquering, so-called "Republic" of Haven is Up To Something; and Honor Harrington has a single, over-age light cruiser with an armament that doesn't work to police the entire star system. 

But the people out to get her have made one mistake. They've made her mad. 

This is another book I've already done a full review for, back when I read a bunch of SF novels over the summer. I enjoyed it pretty thoroughly, since it takes the story of the "misunderstood military genius" and gives it to a female protagonist. It's well-written and the story moves just fast enough. I've heard that this series (the Honor Harrington series) is based off of the Horatio Hornblower books, and it does seem that way, but the books are different enough, in genre and in writing, that they don't come off as too similar. I look forward to reading the next book, whenever I can find it. 

6. Steelheart by Brandon Sanderson
Summary: How far would you go for revenge if someone killed your father? If someone destroyed your city? If everything you ever loved was taken from you?

David Charleston will go to any lengths to stop Steelheart. But to exact revenge in Steelheart’s world, David will need the Reckoners—a shadowy group of rebels bent on maintaining justice. 

And it turns out that the Reckoners might just need David too.

This is yet another book that I've previously reviewed on this blog. Again, see that post for my complete thoughts. To make a long(ish) review short, well... This is a book with a very unique perspective on superheroes. It turns genre conventions upside down and tells a heartfelt, enthralling story, and the whole thing is very well-written. As a side note, the sequels are just as good. I'd recommend the whole Reckoners trilogy, which stems from this book; but even as a standalone, Steelheart is awesome, and comes highly recommended by me.

7. War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells
Summary: After Martians invade Earth—specifically, England—a philosophically-inclined writer is set on a journey across the ravaged English countryside as he attempts to find his wife and, with luck, avoid death. 

This is this year's obligatory really old, yet surprisingly good novel (last year's was Jules Verne's Around the World in Eighty Days). First published in 1898, War of the Worlds is thought to be the first mainstream alien invasion story, and besides being groundbreaking science fiction, it also carries some scintillating social commentary. It isn't as exciting or fast-moving as modern sci-fi, but it still carries its fair share of action. The best part of the novel, though—at least in my opinion—is the atmosphere Wells creates with words alone. The scenarios presented in the novel, the hopelessness and fear, were mildly terrifying even to me. They're even sharper when you think of how nineteenth- and twentieth-century readers must have perceived the story. All of Wells's fiction was based on real science of his day, after all.

***

So there you have it: seven books I read this year and loved. I'd recommend all of them, especially if you're a fan of science fiction or history. Even if you're not, these are still, in my opinion, valuable books. If you've read any of these or end up reading them in the coming year, I'd love to discuss them. Until then, Feliz Navidad, Happy Holidays, and a Happy New Year

Book Recommendation: Steelheart

Summary: How far would you go for revenge if someone killed your father?

If someone destroyed your city?

If everything you ever loved was taken from you?

David Charleston will go to any lengths to stop Steelheart. But to exact revenge in Steelheart’s world, David will need the Reckoners—a shadowy group of rebels bent on maintaining justice. 

And it turns out that the Reckoners might just need David too.






Recently, I've been getting more and more into the superhero genre. It's fun to think about people with awesome skills or superpowers--and often, the narrative of a vigilante with a hidden identity raises interesting moral questions. The superhero genre, when handled right, contains a wealth of storytelling possibilities. This book--and its sequels--explores one of the lesser-seen possibilities, and boy is it enthralling.

The premise of Steelheart is that at some point twelve or so years in the past, a weird astronomical event called Calamity occurred--and people all over the world started gaining superpowers, bending and breaking the laws of physics. And then all of these superpowered people (called "Epics") decided that what they really wanted to do with these powers was take as much power as they could for themselves, and subjugate anyone too weak to fight back.

That's the setup for the novel's main story. This certainly isn't the first book to feature a story where people with superpowers go bad instead of good and try to take over the world. But this book takes the idea further than most. In a sense, this is an anti-superhero story: here, the people with powers are the villains, the monsters, the evil ones. The only heroes here are the ordinary people with the courage and cunning to fight back.

In fact, the more I think about it, this story is the antithesis to stories like X-Men, where people with powers are oppressed solely because they have powers. In this story, author Brandon Sanderson takes the idea of "superpowers" to its logical extreme. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If ordinary people really did start gaining superpowers out of nowhere, who's to say they wouldn't all become tyrants?

Of course, the sequels muddy this philosophical bent quite a bit. But the books still have a very interesting and thus far underused premise. In addition, the characters are all sympathetic and complex, and the plotting of the books is a thing to behold. Seriously, Brandon Sanderson has a knack for weaving an action-packed mystery and revealing a plot twist at the very end that changes everything. He's also good at coming up with intriguing settings; each book takes place in a different city that's been transformed since the coming of the Epics. Each place is unique and drives the action in its own way.

In short, the Reckoners Trilogy--of which Steelheart is the first book--is an amazing series, and I'm glad I had the chance to read it. I would highly recommend it to others looking for a short series to get into, especially if superheroes are your thing.

I give Steelheart four stars out of five (though the Reckoners Trilogy as a whole is more of a 4.5/5).

Book Review: Fate of Flames

Summary: Four girls with the power to control the elements and save the world from a terrible evil must come together in the first epic novel in a brand-new series.

When Phantoms—massive beasts made from nightmares and darkness—suddenly appeared and began terrorizing the world, four girls, the Effigies, each gained a unique power to control one of the classical elements: earth, air, fire, and water. Since then, four girls across the world have continually fought against the Phantoms, fulfilling their cosmic duty. And when one Effigy dies, another girl gains her power as a replacement.

But now, with technologies in place to protect the world’s major cities from Phantom attacks, the Effigies have stopped defending humanity and, instead, have become international celebrities, with their heroic feats ranked, televised, and talked about in online fandoms.

Until the day that New York City’s protection against the Phantoms fails, a man seems to be able to control them by sheer force of will, and Maia, a high school student, unexpectedly becomes the Fire Effigy.

Now Maia has been thrown into battle with three girls who want nothing to do with one another. But with the first human villain that the girls have ever faced, and an army of Phantoms preparing for attack, there isn’t much time for the Effigies to learn how to work together.

Can the girls take control of their destinies before the world is destroyed forever?



First off, a disclaimer: Fate of Flames is scheduled to be released this November. The copy of it that I read is an ARC, which I obtained at Barnes & Noble's Book-Fest. Legally, I am not allowed to quote this book, only review it in my own words. That's what I always do, but I felt I should note this somewhere in the post.

Now, onto the review.

Fate of Flames is sort of a weird book for me. First, it's a contemporary fantasy about a girl who gains special powers. There are certain tropes and clichés associated with such a story, and Fate of Flames plays right into some of those. There are others that it plays with or subverts, which makes the book as a whole both conventional and inventive at the same time.

On the conventional side, it's a coming-of-age story about a high school girl--Maia Finley--who gains the ability to control fire. As the Fire Effigy, she's thrown into a world where she's expected to team up with three other Effigies--her personal heroes--and fight the monsters that have been attacking the world since the 1800's. But there's a twist--Maia is terrified of fire, ever since a house fire killed her parents and twin sister. And there's something suspicious about the death of her predecessor...

The story itself, at least for three fourths of the book, is pretty conventional. Coming of age story--check. Relatable teenage protagonist--check. Mysterious hot love interest man--check. Shadowy governmental organization--check. Monsters the world must be defended from--check.

But that's not all there is to the book, and that's the part that makes it unique. Yes, it's a coming of age story--but it's one that doesn't shy away from the psychological effect constant fighting has on teenaged soldiers. The relatable teen girl protagonist has many weaknesses and genuinely doesn't know what's going on a lot of the time--there's no way she could've made it through the plot of the book without the help of the other three Effigies (Belle, Chae Rin, and Lake). All three of these other girls also have their own flaws and weaknesses, yet none of them are demonized or set up as one-dimensional rivals for Maia. In the end, they find strength by working together. The mysterious love interest guy is a member of the shadowy governmental organization--and as it turns out, both of them were probably lying to Maia all along. There are only three prominent male characters in the book, and one of them is a government agent with nasty secrets, one of them is a government agent with zero morals, and one is a villain with multiple personalities in his head. He's able to control the monsters that have been attacking the world for over a century.

So there's a lot going on in this book. The plot and characters are a smooth blend of the cliché and the atypical. That sort of threw me in the first half of the book--I never knew what to expect, even when I thought I did. But by the second half, I got to liking it. Fate of Flames is a well-written book with good characters and a lot of interesting concepts. And it's the first in a series, so I'm definitely looking forward to seeing where the story goes.

So that's my opinion of the book. I've still got one more thing to add: back by popular demand, it's the star rating system that I used to use for movies. I'll be using it to rate this book, and presumably a few more books after it; if like it or think I could use a better system, please let me know!

I'm giving Fate of Flames three and a half stars.

Fate of Flames hasn't been released yet, so I guess there aren't a lot of people out there to discuss it with me. But suffice to say, it's a good book and I'm looking forward to enjoying the rest of the series. In my opinion, any author who can blend cliché and originality with this amount of skill is someone whose books I'll be keeping up with. 

Movie Fights: Civil War vs. Dawn of Justice

Alright, I understand that technically, this post should be called Movie Fights: Captain America: Civil War vs. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, but I didn't name it that because, well, first of all: that's a really long title. Too long. Secondly, there are way too many colons in there. And finally, I for one have had enough of these ridiculous movie subtitles. Call it Batman vs. Superman OR call it Dawn of Justice, but don't do both! That's just confusing! It's like cramming two movies' worth of material into one rushed, confusing theatrical cut... wait a second.

Sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me start again: This is the much-awaited (maybe) comparison of Marvel's Captain America: Civil War, and DC's Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Now, on the surface, these two movies seem to have a lot in common. They’re both big-budget summer action films where superheroes who should be working together fight instead, because of a relatively petty issue that they could easily resolve by communicating if they really tried. However, these movies have a lot of sizable differences, which add up to make them into two very different films.

I’ll tackle Batman v. Superman first.

To start, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is long. It’s a long movie, and I swear not a minute of it is wasted. It’s stuffed to the gills with plot. There are at least two and half different plotlines in the theatrical cut alone; I hear there are even more in the director’s cut. Most of the plot is setup for Batman and Superman fighting; and boy is there a lot of setup. I don’t want to spoil any of it, but let me just say: there are more villainous machinations and philosophy-rationality discussions in Batman v. Superman than there are actual brawls between Batman and Superman. In addition to all the philosophical rhetoric and plot twists, there’s also a generous amount of setup for future DC movie-universe films. I’m not a hardcore DC fan, so I didn’t catch all of the hints while I was watching the movie, but I got at least some of them. And then, of course, there’s a subplot meant to set up the DC’s incoming Justice League movie.

All this adds up to a film so full of things happening that it’s hard to follow everything at once. Batman v. Superman is so dense, so stuffed with important plot pieces that my only impression walking out of the theater was “sensory overload”. It took me the better part of two weeks to really work through everything I vicariously experienced in the movie. For a movie called Batman v. Superman, there’s a lot of expositing, a lot of storytelling twists and turns, and not a lot of fight scenes. (In fact, 90% of the fighting is relegated to the last half hour of the movie. The rest of the movie only has a Superman rescue montage and like one scene of Batman doing Cool Stuff.)

So Batman v. Superman is too much material crammed into not enough space, with a much darker tone than you would think given the subject matter. Let’s look at Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War.

Unlike DC, Marvel has already established a strong movie brand and found their niche as far as storytelling goes. They’ve got a handle on the tone of their movies, and though I think the actual writing in their films has been going downhill of late, they know what works for them.

So Captain America: Civil War is, in essence, more of the same. It’s got all of the characters you know and love from the previous movies. It’s got peppy, fun-to-watch action scenes sprinkled throughout, along with snappy, humorous dialogue. It’s got a smattering of thought-out character moments, and a plot that makes sense if you don’t think about it too much. In short, it’s got everything we’ve come to expect from Marvel over the past few years.

To be honest, I enjoyed Civil War a lot more than Batman v. Superman. Civil War was a lot less complicated, easier to follow, and didn’t require as much active thought from me. It also had a more light-hearted tone. Batman v. Superman is dark and gritty and believes that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Civil War believes that power corrupts, but ultimately justice can be served if we try hard and commit to it. That’s a big difference in tone right there, but that’s not the end of it. Batman v. Superman is almost entirely consumed with its philosophy—that power is a corrupting influence with no moral compass, no matter a person’s intentions. By contrast, Civil War doesn’t touch on its own philosophy hardly at all, and even contradicts itself at points. What it comes down to is that Civil War doesn’t take itself half as seriously as Batman v. Superman, so it’s more fun to watch.

The thing is, though, I don’t think either of these movies is really the best it could have been, and ultimately neither of them are a completely enjoyable presentation of what they promised. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any movie that promises me Batman and Superman fighting each other has a heck of a premise to live up to. The same goes for Civil War: the filmmakers had a lot to set up if they were going to get me to believe that the Avengers would really split apart and fight each other. Both movies tried to live up to their premises, but neither of them accomplished it really well. Batman v. Superman spent too much time on the buildup. It’s so dark and complicated that by the time it gets to the actual fight, you hardly even care anymore. Civil War didn’t spend enough time building things up; it presented a philosophy of sorts for both sides of the conflict, but then had the characters contradict themselves multiple times. Essentially, Civil War seesawed back and forth between a dark, serious plotline and the upbeat, enjoyable action sequences we’ve come to expect from Marvel. It couldn’t pick a tone, and I think that was its major flaw.

I do think both of these movies are worth watching. Civil War certainly isn’t the worst movie Marvel’s ever made, and it did have its share of worthwhile moments. Batman v. Superman is… an experience. I actually did enjoy it, but not all of it. If you watch it for anything, watch for Ben Affleck as Batman and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. They were definitely the highlights.

Both these movies are worth watching, but I think they both represent missed potential on the parts of their studios. To quote the Honest Trailer, Batman v. Superman “burned through like six movies’ worth of good material”, and suffered for it. It was too rushed, trying to get us to care about too much in too short a time span. By contrast, it was obvious that Civil War was, at least in part, riding the wave of popularity Marvel has accrued with its past movies. It’s my personal opinion that the writing in Marvel movies is starting to go downhill, simply because Marvel knows that any movie they slap their name on will sell like hotcakes. Essentially, they’re getting lazy, instead of using that branding potential to break new ground and explore new territory film-wise.

In closing: both of these movies represent their respective studios’ shortcomings. Captain America: Civil War rides a wave of previous successes, not bothering with internal consistency because the writers know people won’t care; it’s Marvel, and Marvel movies are good. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice tries desperately to build up everything in the DC universe at once, hoping that something will stick and get people to come back for the next DC film. So both of these movies have their good points, but neither reached their full potential. Neither of them could decide exactly what they were trying to do. Maybe they’re more similar than I thought. 

Book Review: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Summary: Seconds before the Earth is demolished to make way for a galactic freeway, Arthur Dent is plucked off the planet by his friend Ford Prefect, a researcher for the revised edition of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy who, for the last fifteen years, has been posing as an out-of-work actor.

Together this dynamic pair begin a journey through space aided by quotes from The Hitchhiker's Guide ("A towel is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have") and a galaxy-full of fellow travelers: Zaphod Beeblebrox--the two-headed, three-armed ex-hippie and totally out-to-lunch president of the galaxy; Trillian, Zaphod's girlfriend (formally Tricia McMillan), whom Arthur tried to pick up at a cocktail party once upon a time zone; Marvin, a paranoid, brilliant, and chronically depressed robot; Veet Voojagig, a former graduate student who is obsessed with the disappearance of all the ballpoint pens he bought over the years. 

Where are these pens? Why are we born? Why do we die? Why do we spend so much time between wearing digital watches? For all the answers stick your thumb to the stars. And don't forget to bring a towel!


The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is without a doubt one of the most bizarre books I've ever read. It's almost--but not quite--seems like a parody of the space opera genre. It takes advantage of the imagination and suspension of disbelief inherent in science fiction, and runs wild with outlandish concepts and absurd plots. I sometimes think fiction could use more absurd stories, suspension of disbelief being what it is, so Hitchhiker is sort of a breath of fresh air in that respect.

One of the main themes of the books--Hitchhiker is the first book in the a series--is insignificance. It comes back to that a lot, in both explicit and implicit ways. "Everything is meaningless," it seems to say at points. "The Universe is so infinitely huge that nothing matters, because what can one insignificant being with a  lifespan of maybe ninety years do in a universe so big?" It's a solidly atheistic viewpoint--although I wouldn't say it's more atheistic than most sci-fi, like say Star Trek or Starship Troopers. It's just more honest about it.

That being said, Hitchhiker isn't a philosophical work of fiction in the same way Starship Troopers is. It's a story first and foremost, punctuated by interludes from the Hitchhiker's Guide itself. These interludes always tie into the story, and describe the larger galaxy in an oft-familiar way. Douglas Adams's galaxy is a lot like Earth in a lot of ways, albeit with much greater scale. And the titular Guide takes hardly any of it seriously--it often doesn't even take itself seriously, thanks to a collection of frustrated, underpaid, and self-serving editors. So we're left with a book--a fictional book and an actual book--that's absurd and irreverent and hilarious. It's not to everyone's taste, certainly. It's a wild ride, even when you know what's coming. But, well--it's fun. It's got elements of depth and shallowness at the same time. It's an almost dizzying spectacle, but it's fun, and since that's its primary aim, it's enjoyable. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, because it's definitely not to everyone's taste. But if you like some of the weirder aspects of sci-fi, well, it just might be worth checking out.

Book Review: On Basilisk Station

Summary: Having made him look a fool, she's been exiled to Basilisk Station in disgrace and set up for ruin by a superior who hates her. 

Her demoralized crew blames her for their ship's humiliating posting to an out-of-the-way picket station. 

The aborigines of the system's only habitable planet are smoking homicide-inducing hallucinogens. 

Parliament isn't sure it wants to keep the place; the major local industry is smuggling; the merchant cartels want her head; the star-conquering, so-called "Republic" of Haven is Up To Something; and Honor Harrington has a single, over-age light cruiser with an armament that doesn't work to police the entire star system. 

But the people out to get her have made one mistake. They've made her mad. 

My SF reading streak continues with On Basilisk Station, the first book in the Honor Harrington series by David Weber. This book had some similarities to the last book on my reading list (Starship: Mutiny, which I reviewed here.) It's a military SF, set in the Navy, and it starts with the protagonist with stationed on the fringes of the galaxy, in what's clearly a attempt at banishment. The difference is that Starship: Mutiny builds up the main character's disillusionment with the Navy and culminates in his desertion. On Basilisk Station builds up the main character's determination and stubbornness in the face of adversity, and culminates with her triumph and promotion. It's easy to see that these two series are heading in very different directions.

I probably enjoyed reading this book a little more than I did Starship: Mutiny. To begin with, this book's protagonist is a woman who's coded as being mixed race, and if you've spent any amount of time on my blog you know that that's my jam. And more than that, Honor Harrington is just a great main character: she's fearless, smart, ingenuitive, and stubborn. Once she realizes what needs to be done in a certain situation, she'll go to any lengths to do it, and that's both her biggest strength and weakness. She never lacks the determination to get the job done, but sometimes that determination tips over into stubbornness: she will do whatever it takes to complete her mission, no matter the cost or strain.

I mentioned in my previous review that the main character of Starship: Mutiny reminded me a little of Horatio Hornblower. I'm getting that feeling again here, the protagonists of these last two books are so similar, personality-wise. However, I think that the Honor Harrington series is more likely to follow the Hornblower series in terms of overall plot and structure. The Starship series probably isn't, since the first book ends with the main character becoming a pirate.

Overall, I really enjoyed On Basilisk Station and I would recommend it, but it had some quirks that might keep it from being unilaterally enjoyable. For one thing, there's a fair amount of politics interwoven with the plot here. I didn't mind that, because I actually love sci-fi politics. (I blame the Star Wars prequels for that.) But it could be considered distracting from the main story. There's also a few places where the author breaks off in the middle of, say, a spaceship chase scene to talk about how faster-than-light travel works in this universe. There's context for those types of tangents, and they only happen a couple of times, and only go on for a couple of pages, so I was okay with it. But it is a little jarring and, again, could very easily be considered distracting.

I also feel the need to give a couple of content warnings. There are instances of strong language throughout the story, and a few fairly detailed descriptions of battlefield gore in the last third of the book. There's also mention of and rumination upon an (unsuccessful) attempted rape in a character's backstory. (That's actually one of my only major pet peeves with this book. I wish the author had found some other way to set up conflict between a male character and a female character, because the whole "attempted rape" backstory felt kinda forced and really unnecessary.)

On the whole, though, I really enjoyed this book and look forward to reading more of the series. If you like science fiction that has action, politics, economical intrigue, and well-thought-out scientific explanations for faster-than-light travel, then this just might be the book for you.

Book Review: Starship: Mutiny

Summary: The starship Theodore Roosevelt is fighting on the far outskirts of a galactic war, its crew made up of retreads and raw recruits. A new first officer reports, Wilson Cole, a man with a reputation for exceeding his orders (but getting results). He's been banished to the Teddy R. for his actions, but once there he again ignores his orders. ...

This is the first of five novels about the starship Theodore Roosevelt. The next four will be, in order, Pirate, Mercenary, Rebel, and Flagship.


So, this is the first book in a series, and as far as I can tell, it’s more of an origin story than anything else. Exterior conflict, generated by the enemy Federation, is present, but it’s minimal and not the focus of the story. Most of the book’s movement is focused on developing and showing Wilson Cole’s disillusionment with the Navy he serves.

That’s not to say it’s a boring book. There isn’t one big overarching conflict with the enemy, but there are enough battles and skirmishes to keep things interesting and advance the plot. (Come to think of it, that’s probably a more realistic structure for a novel set during a war, anyway.) There’s some good worldbuilding, though as far as I can tell it’s pretty standard for a science fiction novel. But what really drives this book are the characters.

This book tells the story of Commander Wilson Cole, and his disillusionment with, and eventual desertion of, the Republic Navy. In a similar vein to Horatio Hornblower, Cole is an extremely smart, intuitive man whose commitment to the Navy is outweighed only by his pragmatism in battle. I liked Cole well enough as a character; he’s sympathetic enough to root for and it’s fun to watch him in action. I do have a bit of a problem with how he’s written, though. Nearly all of Cole’s deductions are correct, and even when they aren’t Cole is always able to turn the situation in his favor somehow. And he doesn’t really have any personality flaws—just good traits that sometimes get him into bad situations. So I think he could have been somewhat better written.

However, on the upside, the author declined to give an in-depth description of Cole’s physical appearance, which means that I was able to imagine him as being played by Idris Elba with no authorial interference whatsoever. That was great.

The secondary characters—other crew members on Cole’s ship—were, on the whole, also enjoyable to read about. My personal favorites where Commander Podok and Christine Mboya. Christine Mboya is the best, and also wasn’t described; in the movie adaptation I’ve already constructed in my head, she would be played by Nicole Beharie. I also loved Podok’s character despite her being an antagonist; I do feel that her actions towards the end of the book were out of character and, without giving out spoilers here, let me just say that I don’t think she would have done what she did. But, well, mischaracterization happens. I’m not super bitter about it. I just think Podok was out of character and I hope she’s better written if she shows up in the sequels.

There are sequels. Four of them, to be exact. Remember how I said this is basically an origin story? Well, to be more specific, it’s a space pirate origin story. That’s my jam, and you can bet that I am going to be reading this entire series and reviewing. Whether it gets better, gets worse, or stays at the same quality level, I’m in.

As for Starship: Mutiny itself, it’s a good book. It’s not the most original thing I’ve ever read, but it’s a solid story with likable characters and a nice backdrop. There’s a solid feel to the story, and I really am looking forward to reading the sequels. I’d say that if you like old-style or classic science fiction, or the military SF sub-genre, then you’ll probably enjoy this book.

Movie Fights: Guardians of the Galaxy vs. The Lightning Thief

For some reason, this week has been a Bad Movie Week for me. And when I say that, I mean that my sister and I somehow finished two phenomenally bad movies in the same week. However, as I told my sister while we were watching Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief: there are two types of bad movies. There are good bad movies, and bad bad movies. And as it just so happens, I watched one of each this week. So here I am to put my classical education to work in the real world and compare those two movies.

I’m going to start with the first installment in the Percy Jackson and the Olympians movie series. Before I get into this, I’d just like to make a note: the Percy Jackson series is very near and dear to my heart, because I started it when I was young, and the writing only improved as I continued reading it into teenager-hood. It’s a good series that blends Greek mythology and modern wit with great characters.

Anyone who’s followed my blog for a length of time knows that few things rile me as much as a movie adaptation desecrating a book that I love. So it is with great loathing and bitter glee that I am about to rip into this laughable excuse for an adaptation.

To start with, I feel that everyone reading this should know that Rick Riordan, the author of the Percy Jackson series, publicly disowned the movies. (Sadly, there’s a second movie. I haven’t seen that one.) As a writer who would love to see some of my ideas on the big screen, that’s a pretty bad sign right there. And oh, let me tell you: the movie was just as bad as I anticipated based on the author’s sentiment alone.

To start, they butchered the characters. Usually I’m not a huge stickler for movie characters looking exactly the way they did in the book, but the one time I actually cared about that, the movies went and changed the character. Anyone who has read the Percy Jackson books knows: Annabeth being a brunette is as much an oxymoron as a warm snowflake. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

This movie changed pretty much the entire plot of the book, and had to throw in a bunch of extraneous scenes and details just to support that change. I get that they might not have been able to replicate the book’s plot exactly, but they surely could have done better than they did. They took out the actual villain from the books and used the decoy villain, the guy who didn’t actually do it, as the actual villain. Like I said, they took out a ton of plot from the books, and then stuffed a bunch of nonsensical filler in to try and hide the gaps. That’s not the only problem, though.

Not only is the plot terrible, but the writing in general is just insipid, and the writers utterly butchered nearly every aspect of Greek mythology they could get their hands on. They flat-out ignored every aspect of worldbuilding from the books. They ignored stuff from the original mythology, like the actual conduct of Hades’s and Persephone’s relationship, and the fact that Hades is more of a grumpy introvert than a fire-breathing demon lord. Also, the characters were flat as week-old soda. Percy had none of his sarcasm or snappy repartee from the books. Annabeth was… smart, I guess… but had none of her depth or insight. Grover had some great lines—he was one of the few things I enjoyed about the movie—but he also lacked any and all depth. The movie was over all badly written and a shameless cash-grab only loosely based on the books.

But hey, the special effects were pretty good.

In conclusion, don’t watch The Lightning Thief. Don’t ever watch it. Just read the books and pretend the movie(s) don’t exist. The Lightning Thief is a bad bad movie, and I utterly hated it.

Fortunately, that wasn’t the only movie I watched this week.

The other movie I saw was Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy, which I’d been wanting to watch for some time. I’d heard it be called “Marvel trying to do Star Wars”, and maybe that was meant to be a derogatory description, but it just intrigued me more. Plus, it has space pirates. Space pirates are one of my favorite fiction things, and you wouldn’t believe how hard it can be to find things that are about them, so that was also a plus.

I don’t know how close Guardians of the Galaxy is to the original source material. I do know that by most rubrics, it’s a bad movie. I mean, it’s corny. It’s nonsensical. It’s silly. It’s just a little bit surreal. (Which is fitting, I guess, because from what I’ve read the original comics were one heck of a drug trip. You think I’m joking, but I’m not. Look it up.)

The point is, Guardians isn’t a good movie, or even a really well-written one. But it’s fun. It’s big and it’s loud and it’s colorful and it’s funny and it doesn’t take itself seriously. The protagonist is about as generic as they come, yet he’s relatable enough that I enjoyed watching him. The point is, Guardians of the Galaxy is by all measurements a bad movie, but it’s a good bad movie. It owns the silliness, the absurdity of the premise, and it just has fun with it. Yeah, it’s a bad movie, but I like it. I can like bad stuff.

(There you go, Dad. It’s in writing. Happy now?)

There’s not a lot of a difference between The Lightning Thief and Guardians of the Galaxy. By all logic, I should despise the both of them. But The Lightning Thief took one of my favorite book series and tossed it in the mud, so yeah, I’m never touching that movie again, not even with a ten-foot pole. Guardians of the Galaxy took a really weird, nonsensical premise and made it into a fun, silly movie. Sure, it’s not a good movie. I wouldn’t say it’s even as good as Ant-Man. But—much like its protagonist—it’s able to muster enough charm, jokes, and good looks to bluff its way through my common sense and critical analysis. So there’s that. I wouldn’t recommend Guardians of the Galaxy to anybody I know. I will make fun of everything in that movie because it’s the corniest film I’ve seen in a long time.

But I am definitely going to watch it again.

Movie Fights: Ant-Man vs. Pacific Rim

[My review of Pacific Rim] [My review of Ant-Man]

Good morning, everyone! Or, well, good whatever-time-of-day-it-is-where-you-are. Today I'm debuting the first in what will hopefully be an extended category of blog posts, sorta similar to my History Recaps. Movie Fights is a series where I put my classical education to work in the real world and write out a comparison of two movies. Today I'll be talking about a pair of action movies. One features a guy who uses a super-suit to shrink down to an inch tall, and the other is about giant robots slugging it out with giant alien monsters.

As you can see, I'm taking my classical education very seriously.

On the surface, Ant-Man and Pacific Rim don't seem that similar. One is a superhero movie, and the other is more of a general sci-fi action movie. Of course, they're both popcorn summer flicks that you wouldn't think to put a lot of thought into the first time you saw them. To be fair, I have only seen Ant-Man once, but if you've read my review you know I put a lot of thought into it. I've seen Pacific Rim like... four times? So I've had time to analyze it.

So today I'm going to compare the two. Specifically, I'm planning to look at how these two films handled their female characters and characters of color.

Let's start with Ant-Man.

Ant-Man tells the tale of Scott Lang (played by Paul Rudd), a down-on-his-luck thief with a cause who, now that he’s out of jail, is having trouble finding employment. Luckily he’s able to crash with some friends, but he doesn’t quite have the money to pay child support, which means he’s mostly cut off from his young daughter.

That’s the initial setup of the movie. It’s Scott Lang’s story, first and foremost. He’s the main character. He’s a good main character, and Paul Rudd plays the part very well, but he’s nothing new. Nothing groundbreaking. Hollywood loves their white male protagonists, and Marvel especially loves their white male protagonists. Playing opposite Rudd is Evangeline Lilly as Hope Pym, the high-powered corporate executive estranged-from-her-father daughter of Hank Pym.

I like what Evangeline Lilly did with this role. Like most of the actors in this film, she exceeded my expectations and breathed life into a character that wasn’t all that original. My problem is with the way this character was written, because while Hope Pym has a lot of cool character traits, she’s not really a complete character. In the end, she only really exists to prop up the stories of Scott and Hank. Scott and Hank both have their own story arcs; Scott’s is most prominent, seeing as he’s the main character, but Hank has a progression too, and weirdly enough, both Scott’s and Hank’s arcs are very closely tied to Hope’s character. Yet Hope is the only main character, aside from the villain, who doesn’t have her own story arc. Yes, she does reconcile with her father towards the end of the movie, but overall it feels like that’s more for Hank’s benefit than for Hope’s character growth.

I’d like to contrast this with the way Pacific Rim treated its protagonists. At first glance, the main character of Pacific Rim is Raleigh Becket, played by Charlie Hunnam. For the most part, Raleigh seems like your average white male action movie protagonist. He’s a somewhat world-weary veteran Jaeger pilot, who, due to the traumatic loss of his brother in a battle, is not eager to get back to piloting. But he has to, in order to save the world, so he comes back to the world of Jaeger piloting. That’s where he meets Mako Mori, a hopeful pilot.

On the surface, Mako Mori seems to have a similar narrative purpose to Hope Pym. She’s a very integral part of Raleigh’s story, and for about the first half of the movie you assume that that’s it, that it’s Raleigh’s story, not Mako’s.

But as the story progresses, we learn more and more about Mako and her adoptive father, who happens to be a former Jaeger pilot and Raleigh’s commanding officer. We learn Mako’s backstory, we learn what drives her and why she’s so eager to become a real pilot, and by the end of the movie, it’s Mako Mori who has achieved her goals and become a full-fledged character in her own right. It’s Mako Mori who has a concrete story arc and really blossoms by the end of it.

(Raleigh appears to have his own arc—overcoming his hang-ups and trauma about getting back in a Jaeger—but that doesn’t really develop. Actually, once he meets Mako and forms a relationship with her, he seems to settle into his old career with a new ferocity. It’s an interesting dynamic.)

Ant-Man seems to be attempting to tell a father-daughter story with Hank and Hope, but because Pacific Rim allows to Mako Mori to be her own character, and really develops the bad and the good of her relationship with her father, it tells a much better story. That’s the crux of the matter, I think: Pacific Rim allows its heroine to be her own person, her own character, with a backstory and motivations outside of her relationship with Raleigh Becket. Oh, Raleigh and Mako are close, and I love how their relationship develops, but Mako is never forced to sacrifice any part of her character to advance Raleigh’s story. She’s her own person, and she’s treated as such.

Ant-Man… well, as I said, the actors did a lot with what they were given, but the writing isn’t anything to crow about. And Hope Pym? She’s written as a side character meant to be a part of Scott’s story. She’s not given her own arc or her own impetus. On one level, that’s fine. Every story needs supporting characters. Not every character in a story can have their own arc. On another level, though, the treatment of Hope Pym is disappointing, because it’s almost always a female character that receives this type of sidelining in action movies. (The Lego Movie did this too. I love it to pieces, but The Lego Movie did this exact thing with Wyldstyle.)

Women are less likely to be the hero in a contemporarily written story than men are. Women of color are a lot less likely to be the hero, or even be included in the story in the first place. In my opinion, this is (one of the reasons) why Pacific Rim is better-written and more well-rounded movie than Ant-Man is. Pacific Rim gives us Mako Mori, a Japanese woman who is allowed to be the hero of her own story, a Japanese woman who is allowed to be a fully fleshed-out character just like her co-lead. I liked Ant-Man, but it didn’t do this. It stuck to the old formula of using a female character to support and prop up a male hero, just the way many Marvel films so far have. For this reason, I firmly believe that of these two movies, Pacific Rim is the better story.

(Postscript: Ask me about my other, more minor, compare/contrasts of these two movies. I was going to talk about other stuff, but this issue is near and dear to my heart, so it took the forefront. Oh well.)

Captain America: Civil War [Spoiler-Free]

So I got very lucky and was able to see Captain America: Civil War opening weekend. I don't want to spoil it for anyone less lucky, so I'm just going to post a vague outline of spoiler-free thoughts, and then expound on them later.

- The Russo brothers, directors of both this movie and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, continued to impress me with this movie. The plot is... a little sketchy, overall, but it's paced well. 

- The writing and characterization were excellent. I was skeptical and a little nervous about how this movie would be written going into it, but I wasn't disappointed. All the characters were great, and some were particularly great. 

- I'm definitely going to compare this movie to Batman vs. Superman later on, because there were a lot of similarities, but also a lot of contrasts. 

- I would definitely recommend seeing this movie. As with Winter Soldier, it's easily one of Marvel's best movies. 

Identity & the Divergent Series: Examining Casting Choices

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Divergent series lately. For anyone who doesn’t know, the Divergent series is a book trilogy set in a dystopian post-apocalyptic Chicago. It’s somewhat divisive as far as opinions go; either you like it or you don’t. I’m not the biggest fan and I’ll readily admit the series has problems, but I still like it.

Now the Divergent series has recently been adapted into a series of movies. The first three movies (Divergent, Insurgent, and Allegiant) are out; the fourth (Ascendant) is on its way. (I reviewed Insurgent a while back.) While I’m a moderate fan of the books, I have some decidedly mixed feeling on the Divergent movies. As far as writing goes, they’re… they’re okay. They smoothed over some plot holes/rough patches in the books while still creating a recognizable adaptation. So it’s not really the writing I have a problem with; it’s the casting.

You see, a while back, Veronica Roth, the author of the Divergent trilogy, answered a fan’s question over at her blog. In the post, Ms. Roth said that she’d imagined Four, the series’ romantic lead and main guy character, as being biracial and/or racially mixed, with his father being white and his mother being an olive-skinned woman of color. According to Ms. Roth, Four is recognizable as the son of both his parents—basically, he’s got a mix of features from both of them. Roth also stated that Four’s skin color more resembles his father’s, which means he’s light-skinned and/or white-passing. For me, a light-skinned biracial kid, this is (or was) exciting news.

Now, almost none of these cool details were in the book. Four’s mother is described as dark-haired and olive-skinned, but Four himself is never really described in terms of skin color or race. On its own, that’s okay; it can be challenging to describe a biracial character in a speculative setting where you can’t use words like “biracial”. And though she didn’t clarify it in the books, Ms. Roth said in another blog post that should her series be adapted into movies, she would do her best to ensure that her characters of color—Four, Christina, and Tori, for example—would be accurately cast.

And… well, now we do have a series of Divergent movies. And I will admit that Christina and Tori were accurately cast. Four, however, is played by Theo James. Mr. James is darker-skinned than his co-star, Shailene Woodley, who plays main character Tris. But James isn’t biracial; he’s of English and Scottish descent, with a Greek grandfather. So while he looks racially ambiguous, he’s not biracial.

Theo James as Four is, on its own, something of a mess, but it’s unfortunately not the worst casting choice I’ve ever seen. But the problems continued in Insurgent when Naomi Watts was cast as Evelyn Eaton, Four’s mother, who, if you’ll remember, was a woman of color in the books.

I have nothing against Naomi Watts. She’s a good actress. But even setting race aside, I couldn’t see her as Evelyn. And adding race into it, let me just say: Naomi Watts is white. Very white. Blindingly white. I know some white people can be considered “olive-skinned”, but Naomi Watts isn’t one of them. She just straight-up didn’t seem at all like Evelyn Eaton to me.

So it was Insurgent that really got me thinking about the casting of the movie series. Soon after I saw it, I re-watched Divergent with my sister, and noticed that while there are a lot of non-white people in the background, and as supporting characters like Christina and Tori, all of the main characters were played by white actors. I started to wonder, as I have with so many movies: If post-apocalyptic Chicago has such a diverse population, why are all of the main characters in this story white?

I don’t have enough money or influence, yet, to make a lot of changes in the movie industry. But I can imagine how things might be in my perfect, idealized universe. Thus, without further ado, I present: Divergent, as I might have cast it. (Click on the pictures to enlarge them.)

***

1. Chloe Bennet as Tris Prior

Tris is the main character of the Divergent series. In reality, she’s played by Shailene Woodley. It was while watching Insurgent that I realized that, in my opinion at least, Bennet and Woodley actually look somewhat alike. The difference is that Chloe Bennet is mixed (Chinese/white). Since she’s already proven that she can play an action heroine in Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD, I think Chloe Bennet would be an interesting choice for Tris.

2. Tyler Posey as Tobias “Four” Eaton

At this juncture I would like to point out that I do think Theo James did a decent job with this role. But the fact remains that he’s not biracial. Tyler Posey, on the other hand, is. (His father is white and his mother is, I believe, Mexican-American.) Wow. Look at that. An actual biracial actor to play an actual biracial character. Look at that, Hollywood. It’s not that hard.

3. Lucy Liu as Jeanine Matthews

Confession time, here’s what I got: I have always imagined Jeanine Matthews, the villain, as East Asian, ever since I first read the books. The movies cast Kate Winslet, who plays the part pretty well, but is also blonde and white. I left the first movie a little annoyed by this (but not too annoyed, because I’m still not sure how Jeanine was described in the books). Most of this post was conceived after I saw Insurgent, but Lucy Liu has always been and will always be my top pick to play Jeanine Matthews.

4. Constance Wu as Natalie Prior

Natalie Prior is Tris’s mother, and she’s not a terribly important character, though she does get things done in the story, unlike some fictional mothers I could name. She’s played by Ashley Judd in the actual movie—but if Chloe Bennet were to play Tris, it would logically follow that one of her parents should be Chinese. I figured I’d keep her father (played by Tony Goldwyn) white and cast Constance Wu as her mother.

5. Kenny Leu as Caleb Prior

This is related to the above point. Caleb is Tris’s brother, so it follows that he would also be Chinese like her and their mother. That’s pretty much all I have to say here.

6. Esai Morales as Marcus Eaton

Marcus is Four’s father. When I originally thought up this alternate cast, I only included Four and Marcus (Four’s mother isn’t in the first movie)—so I figured, if I was going to cast a Latino actor to play Four, I should cast a Latino actor to play his father, too. Then, of course, Insurgent came out and I got involved in the whole mess surrounding the casting of Four and his mom. That led me to…

7. Rosario Dawson as Evelyn Eaton

After seeing Insurgent and reading up on the miscasting of Evelyn, Four’s mother, I just wanted to see a woman of color as that character. So, without thinking about it much, I added Rosario Dawson to my happy fictional alternate cast. It wasn’t until later that I realized why this wouldn’t work—namely, because Four is supposed to be half white, and neither Esai Morales nor Rosario Dawson are white. However, the movies cast non-biracial, but ambiguous-looking Theo James, and then made both of his parents white, so hopefully you’ll forgive me for casting actually biracial Tyler Posey to play Four, then making his parents non-white. (Morales is Puerto Rican-American and Dawson is, interestingly, also biracial, being black and Latina.) Were I to somehow do an actual reboot of the Divergent series, I’d probably do this differently, but for a fun thought-experiment blog post I’m not going to put that much effort into it.

So there you have it.

***

Ultimately, the Divergent series is about two teenagers trying to find their way in a world where people are divided into rigid, divided groups by a self-imposed system. It’s about young people rising up against a world telling them, You can only be one thing. I think that’s a story a lot of biracial/mixed kids can relate to, and I think it’s a shame we’re not allowed to see ourselves play out that adventure on the big screen. Divergent is a story so heavily centered on the theme of identity, a story that says, You can be more than one. You can have multiple facets of identity. Trying to pigeonhole people is reductive and doesn’t work.

Shouldn’t biracial kids be able to see themselves in that message, too?

Ant-Man

*Warning: Spoilers are contained in the following post.*

Confession time: I did not think I was going to enjoy Ant-Man.

When I first found out that Marvel was doing an Ant-Man movie, I was pretty excited. Thanks to Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, I knew who Ant-Man was and I was happy to see him getting a movie.

I got a little less excited when I learned that the movie would actually primarily be about Scott Lang, the second Ant-Man, rather than Hank Pym, the first. But hey, Hank was still in the movie, so I could live with it.

Then I found out that Marvel was not only making it all about Scott, but entirely removing the character of Janet Van Dyne, aka the Wasp. This was the final straw.

To those who don't know why this is a big deal, Janet Van Dyne was a founding member of the Avengers. In fact, Janet Van Dyne named the Avengers. (In more than one continuity!) Janet Van Dyne is the whole reason Hank Pym became a superhero in the first place. And aside from all that, Janet Van Dyne is a really fun character; she's a superhero, and a dang good one, but she's also fun, and humorous, and she's a fashion designer in her free time. (She's also Chinese-American in the Ultimates continuity, which means that Marvel had a wonderful opportunity to include a woman of color in their movie series, and they waved at it as it passed by.)

So yes, I was not happy about Marvel's decision, and as the Ant-Man movie looked pretty boring and generic anyway, I resolved not to watch it.

However, let me tell you from experience: when you are sitting on a plane at four o'clock a.m., having gotten two hours of fitful sleep before giving up on it entirely, none of your carefully thought out reasons for anything will make sense to you. This is how I got roped into finally watching Ant-Man. And...

I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would.

Let's start with that.

***

So, as it turns out, Ant-Man is actually pretty well-written. It's not as good as Iron Man, which is sort of my benchmark for good writing in the MCU, but it's definitely a lot better than Age of Ultron, which is my benchmark for bad writing in the MCU, because seriously, it was terrible. Ant-Man... well, it had its flaws, but overall it was pretty good. The pacing worked, it had a decent character arc for Scott, and the characters, and their relationships, were all pretty well built up. (With a few notable exceptions, which I'll talk about later.) 

Speaking of the characters, they were... good enough, I suppose. I will always be vaguely bitter about needlessly white movie casts, but as far as acting and characterization went, they were good. That's the interesting thing, I guess: none of the characters in this movie were particularly original or groundbreaking, but they were able avoid being cliché through a combination of good writing and good acting. I thought Evangeline Lilly as Hope Pym and Michael Peña as Luis in particular did a lot with the roles they were given. 

In fact, now that I bring it up, I think the same is true of the plot. Nothing about this movie's plot was particularly original; I think it's safe to say I've seen pretty much every element of this movie somewhere else. But the movie overall manages to avoid seeming generic, which is something I honestly didn't think it would be able to do. 

So overall? I liked how this movie was done. It exceeded my expectations, and I can honestly say I enjoyed it. 

However. 

That having been said, while I liked this movie, there was also a lot I didn't like. And if you think I'm not going to nitpick the heck out of this movie, just because it exceeded my expectations, well. You've got another thing coming, buddy. 

So here we go.

***

To start with, I am still very put out about how Marvel decided to treat Janet Van Dyne in this movie. 

Rather than be included in the movie at all, Janet is killed off to further the story of Hank Pym and his daughter Hope. Her full name isn't even stated anywhere in the movie, and she only appears in one (short) scene, where we don't even see her face. This was annoying enough for me, but it didn't end there. You see, in the movie, Hope Pym--Hank and Janet's daugher--is established and blatantly stated to be, hands down, the most qualified person to steal the volatile technology in question and save the world. However, her father (Hank) is unwilling to put her in danger, so he pulls a random thief guy (Scott) off the street and decides to have her train him to do the heist, so if someone does get hurt, hey, it'll just be that random guy we met a couple days ago. 

(I'll talk more about that a little later.)

This plot decision really, really irks me, because on the surface, yeah! It's a good setup! It works, and the writing supports it! And it leads to an interesting dynamic between the characters! But on a meta-narrative level, it doesn't work, because here we have the only female character in the movie, who is also the most qualified to be the hero. You know what that means? It means that Hope Pym should have been the title character of this movie. It means that the only reason she isn't is because Marvel wanted to make another movie about a mediocre white guy who gets superpowers. It means that this movie has double the sidelining of female characters, and that makes me angry. The movie even acknowledges this, because the mid-credits scene is of Hank finally accepting that his daughter is ready to be a hero and admitting that he's got a prototype Wasp suit ready to be finished! There was literally no reason Marvel couldn't have named this movie The Wasp!

(And as a side note on female characters--and this is more of a nitpick, but still a very annoying one--all of the ants in this movie are female and should have been referred to as such. Sorry, I don't make the rules. They're all girls. Especially Antony. You know why Antony has wings? Because she's a queen. Queens are literally the most female ants ever, and the only ones that have wings. Antony should've been named Antonia. No, I will not get over this.)

My other big problem with this movie is the villain, Darren Cross, aka Yellowjacket. Without getting into how they totally changed around the Yellowjacket suit origin, let me just say I was unsatisfied with how Darren Cross was presented. He's clearly written as having some undefined mental illness, but this is only used to make him seem ~stranger~ and ~scarier~ than the heroes and that irks me, because the MCU has yet to really do anything as far as disabled superheroes (except for Bucky. I guess.) so it's really kinda upsetting that they're playing into the Insane Villain cliché when they didn't have to. 

There were also a couple of jokes that left a bad taste in my mouth, largely because there was no reason to include them in the movie. Okay, so you're gonna make a deportation joke, when Latinos are still fighting stereotypes and blatant hate speech from presidential candidates in the year 2016? Okay. I guess. You're going to write in a throwaway line/joke about "g*psy magic" literally right after Joss Whedon casts a couple of white actors to play canonically Romani characters? Okay. You do you. I guess. 

(For those who don't know, "g*psy" is a slur that's unfortunately still commonly used to refer to Romani people.)

I just... there was literally no reason to put this stuff in the movie. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should, Marvel. 

So... while it's well-written, Ant-Man definitely isn't my favorite Marvel movie to date. Actually I'm kinda disappointed, because it's pretty good. The story is good, the characters are well-written, and there's actually some interesting subtext and considerations in there, so it's a shame that there's also stuff like sidelined female characters and a shoehorned romance. (I almost forgot about that. There is a shoehorned romance in this movie. I hate clumsily shoved in romances already, but this one in particular bugs me a lot, because Scott and Hope actually had a really well-built up and well-written friendship, and the fact that the writers felt the need to shove in a "Oh by the way we're together" scene at the end is disappointing.)

Speaking of that, it's time for a section of the review that I don't normally do. 

***

Here I'm going to (hopefully briefly) talk about some nuances. (This is a tribute to how good the characterization actually is in this movie.)

See, in the movie, Hank Pym, played by Michael Douglas, acts as a Wise Old Mentor character to Scott. He pulls him out of his kinda terrible life--hey, that's another thing. I've never seen a Marvel movie, or hardly any movie, really, that addresses how hard it can be to get a job when you've got a felony on your rap sheet. So, good job with that, at least, Marvel. 

Anyway. Hank Pym is the Wise Old Mentor. He's kinda there to guide Scott, teach Scott, and provide something of a cautionary tale about distancing yourself from your daughter to Scott. However, with the way he's written, there are parts of the movie were he comes off as really freaking shady. 

Like, I'm not even sure if this is what the writers were aiming for, which is what makes it so weird. But if you think about it, it's true. Hank's stated motivation for hiring (hiring? did he offer to pay him?) Scott is that he knows the heist might go down in flames, and he doesn't want his daughter to get hurt if that's the case. However, Hank also knows that Scott also has a daughter who he very much loves, and who loves him. And he knows that Scott, while a criminal, really is trying to turn his life around. (And he knows all this because he's been stalking Scott in some way shape or form, but Hank is rich, so it's not called that.)

So to review, Hank hires a guy who's just trying to pay child support and keep in touch with his daughter, manipulates that guy's attachment to his daughter to convince him to break the law again, all the while knowing full well that if everything doesn't go off without a hitch, this man probably won't see his daughter ever again, one way or the other. 

Yeah. If Hank Pym weren't a Good Guy, he'd definitely be a villain. In fact, why wasn't he the villain? I mean, why use the outdated, overdone Insane Villain cliché when this masterpiece of manipulation was sitting right here in the script?

I guess this is the kind of thing that makes me really upset about the mediocrities in this movie. It's easy to dismiss a movie that's just straight-up all-around terrible. It's a lot more frustrating when the movie has some genuinely good writing and interesting characters, but also has just enough White Male Ridiculousness to be aggravating. And, really, that's exactly what Ant-Man is: a thoroughly mixed bag. It's... probably one of the MCU's better movies. It's definitely better than Avengers: Age of Ultron and it's not as weird as Thor: The Dark World. It's fun. It's light. It's also kinda annoying, because if it had tried--if the writers had tried just a little harder, reworked just a few more things--it could've been really fun and really enjoyable. 

So that's Ant-Man. Better than I expected, but still annoying.